“The caste system is not a divine institution. It is a human institution, and it can be changed by human effort.” —Dr B.R. Ambedkar
Introduction
In this modern age of scientific and technological innovations where our beloved nation is growing in every sector and becoming the world’s superpower, if a person faces any kind of discrimination based on caste or colour, then it is certainly an issue of grave concern.
Even after so many consistent efforts, such as constitutional provisions safeguarding the rights of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, significant enactments by the parliament and legislatures of the states, effective enforcement by the executing bodies, judicial activism of the judiciary and various awareness drives all over the country, cases of atrocities against SCs and STs are a harsh reality of our country today.
Untouchability is still practised in some form, especially in rural areas. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was enacted to protect the marginalised communities, but keeping the present data and concerns of the Supreme Court regarding low conviction rates, increase in the number of cases and misuses in mind, we need to discuss this issue from the very beginning.
History of the Caste System and Untouchability in India
The caste system, or classification of people in a society based on race, colour, sex, and place of birth, is not unique to India. While observing history, we will experience that each part of the world has practised certain types of classification in a society now or then.
What’s unique is the description of ‘Varna-Vidhan’ in ancient Hindu scriptures like Vedas and Manusmriti.
Four Varnas in Ancient India
| Varna | Traditional Role | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Brahman | Knowledge and Teaching | Karma (Occupation) |
| Kshatriya | Administration and Protection | Karma (Occupation) |
| Vaisya | Trade and Commerce | Karma (Occupation) |
| Shudra | Service and Labour | Karma (Occupation) |
Four Varnas (Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaisya and Shudra) were based on the occupation or ‘karma’, with every Varna significantly contributing to society without facing any social discrimination.
A person belonging to one Varna was totally free to change it through his karma, as we read in the story of Valmiki, a great poet (Aadi Kavi) and author of Ramayana, who was a thief, belonged to Bheel (Shudra) in his early life but later on was recognised as a Maharishi (Brahmana).
This system of Varna was eventually, by the many historical events, evolved and shaped into Jati (caste), which is based on Janm (birth). Caste was then further divided into sub-castes which became absolute, assigned by birth and unalterable.
Shift from Varna to Jati System
- Initially, Varna was assigned according to karma.
- Later, Jati started being assigned hereditarily.
- One jati was considered superior while another was treated as inferior.
- This became the root cause of untouchability and caste-based discrimination.
- Changing caste or profession became socially prohibited.
Initially, the Varna was assigned according to the Karma, but this shift of assigning Jati hereditarily and considering one Jati as superior and another as inferior is perhaps the root cause and beginning of discriminatory behaviour, practices of untouchability and atrocities against the inferiors.
A person who belonged to one caste was completely barred from changing it or working in another profession. Shudras were considered untouchable as they were associated with work like carrying human excreta, scavenging animal carcasses etc.
Even the British took advantage of these differences and ruled for such a long period of time.
Abolition of Untouchability in India
Untouchability is abolished, and its practice in any form is forbidden by the enforcement of the Constitution of India in 1950. But it is still practised in many parts of India, especially in rural areas.
Constitutional Provisions
There is no specific definition of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (hereinafter referred to as SCs and STs) in the Constitution.
Article 366(24) and 366(25) provide definitions in terms as used for the purpose of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution. The president, after consultation with the governor, specifies SCs and STs for the purposes of the Constitution.
The Constitution of India, as indicated in its preamble, is bound to ensure social justice, equality of status and fraternity with dignity of the individual.
Fundamental Rights and Equality Provisions
| Article | Provision |
|---|---|
| Article 14 | Guarantees Right to Equality |
| Article 15 | Prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth |
| Article 17 | Abolishes untouchability |
| Article 23 | Prohibits forced labour or ‘begar’. |
| Article 46 | Promotes educational and social interests of SCs and STs |
| Article 338 | Provides for National Commission for SCs |
| Article 338A | Provides for National Commission for STs |
In Chapter III, Articles 14 to 18 guarantee the right to equality, and Article 15 provides for specific application of equality that states that the government as well as any citizen shall not discriminate against any citizen on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.
Article 17 abolished untouchability and provided that enforcement of any disability arising out of ‘untouchability’ shall be an offence.
Article 23 prohibited forced labour or ‘begar’, which was made to exploit people of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Article 46 imposes a duty on the state to promote the educational and social interests of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Articles 338 and 338A provide for the establishment of National Commissions with the primary purpose of safeguarding the interests of SCs and STs in India, ensuring their social, educational, economic, and cultural well-being and protecting them from exploitation.
Laws Before SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989
Before 1989, the enactment of the SCs and STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, various enactments were introduced to address the problems of SCs and STs, but those proved insufficient.
- Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955
- Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955
- Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976
The Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955, which was renamed the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, and the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, were enacted to give effect to constitutional provisions in articles 17 and 23.
Provisions Of The SC And The ST (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989
This special legislation was enforced with the purpose of preventing the commission of offences and atrocities against the members of the SCs and STs and for providing relief and rehabilitation for the victims.
Section 3 – Offences Of Atrocities
Section 3 of the act defined different acts, such as putting inedible or obnoxious substances into the mouth; dumping excreta at the door or in the neighbourhood; wrongfully occupying any land; wrongfully dispossessing; forcing to beg or do bonded labour; compelling to carry human carcasses or to do manual scavenging; instituting a false case; giving false evidence; insulting or intimidating; or abusing by caste names, or any other offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the person of SC and ST by a person not being a member of SC and ST, as offences of atrocities and provided enhanced punishment for that.
- Putting inedible or obnoxious substance into the mouth
- Dumping excreta at the door or neighbourhood
- Wrongful occupation of land
- Wrongful dispossession
- Forcing begar or bonded labour
- Compelling manual scavenging or carrying human carcasses
- Instituting false cases or giving false evidence
- Insulting, intimidating, or abusing by caste names
- Other offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 14 – Establishment Of Special Courts
Section 14 provides for the establishment of special courts or exclusive special courts for speedy trials and the deadline of disposing of cases within 2 months.
Section 17 – Preventive Action By Authorities
Section 17 empowers executive body/law and order machinery to take action to prevent offences against SCs and STs.
Section 18 – Exclusion Of Anticipatory Bail
Section 18 of the act excludes provisions of section 438 of the criminal procedure code, 1973 (provisions of anticipatory bail) to ensure the safety of the victim and a fair investigation of the matter.
Section 19 – Exclusion Of Probation Benefits
Section 19 of the act excludes application of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and provisions of section 360 of CrPC.
Section 21 – Duty Of State Government
Section 21 imposes a duty on the state government to take such measures for effective implementation of the act.
Amendment Of 2016
The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (Act No. 1 of 2016) was enforced on the 26th of January 2016 with the purpose of strengthening the provisions of the act further.
New Definitions Added
New definitions were added in section 2, such as ‘dependent’, ‘economic boycott’, ‘social boycott’, ‘manual scavenge’, ‘victim’ and ‘witness’.
| New Terms Introduced | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Dependent | Protection and recognition of dependents of victims |
| Economic Boycott | Addressing financial discrimination |
| Social Boycott | Preventing social exclusion |
| Manual Scavenge | Recognition of exploitative labour practices |
| Victim And Witness | Strengthening victim and witness protection |
New Offences Introduced
New offences were introduced, such as acts of humiliation, sexual offences against woman, forced labour, social/economic boycott, derogatory acts such as garlanding with footwear, tonsuring the head, etc.
- Acts of humiliation
- Sexual offences against woman
- Forced labour
- Social and economic boycott
- Derogatory acts such as garlanding with footwear
- Tonsuring of head
Chapter 4A – Rights Of Victims And Witnesses
A new chapter was inserted (Chapter 4A) containing section 15A providing exclusive rights of victims and witnesses.
Section 3(2)(VA) – Offences Under IPC
A schedule with section 3(2)(VA) was also inserted, which provides a list of offences under IPC.
Amendment Of 2018
The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018, was enacted to reverse the judgement of the Supreme Court in Dr Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs The State of Maharashtra (2018).
Insertion Of Section 18A
This amendment act inserted section 18A, which provides that a preliminary inquiry for registration of an FIR and approval for arrest shall not be required.
Further sub-section 2 of 18A provides that section 438 of CrPC shall not be applicable even to any judgement or order or direction of the court.
Key Features Of The SC/ST (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act
| Provision | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Section 3 | Defines atrocities and enhanced punishment |
| Section 14 | Establishment of special courts for speedy trial |
| Section 17 | Preventive powers to authorities |
| Section 18 | Bars anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC |
| Section 19 | Excludes probation benefits |
| Section 21 | Duty of state government for implementation |
| Section 15A | Rights of victims and witnesses |
| Section 18A | No preliminary inquiry before FIR |
Judicial Trends
When we go through recent judgements on the matters related to atrocities against SCs and STs, we experience mixed judicial trends. The judiciary, while ensuring effective enforcement of the act, focuses on preventing misuses of the act and matters of false arrests.
We can understand these mixed-up trends under these points:
1. Interpretation Of The Provisions
In Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020), the SC held that insult or intimidation of an SC-ST person within the four walls of the building is not an offence under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out.
Recently in Shajan Skaria v. Union of India (2024), the Supreme Court reiterated that mere knowledge that the victim is an SC/ST community member is insufficient to attract Section 3(1)(r) of the Act. The offence must have been committed against the person on the grounds that they are a member of the SC/ST community.
| Case Name | Year | Key Observation |
|---|---|---|
| Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand | 2020 | Insult within private premises may not attract Section 3(1)(r). |
| Shajan Skaria v. Union of India | 2024 | Mere knowledge of caste identity is insufficient to constitute an offence. |
2. Anticipatory Bail
Section 18 of the act barred application of Section 438 of the CrPC in cases of atrocities against SCs and STs, which deals with provisions of anticipatory bail. This restriction was imposed as a protective measure to ensure the safety of victims and their families from further torture or harassment by the accused.
However, the Supreme Court, in the landmark judgement of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs State of Punjab (1980), while issuing detailed guidelines on anticipatory bail, held that anticipatory bail should not be restricted by a rigid formula but should be granted based on the facts and circumstances of each case.
In Ram Krishna Balothia v. Union Of India And Others, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, while upholding the constitutional validity of most of the provisions of the act, held that Section 18 of the act is a violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, as it denied individuals the procedural safeguards essential for ensuring fairness and justice.
The Supreme Court, in its landmark yet controversial judgement in Dr Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs The State of Maharashtra (supra), held that there is no absolute bar against the grant of anticipatory bail in cases under the Atrocities Act, 1989, if no prima facie case is made out or where, on judicial scrutiny, the complaint is found to be prima facie mala fide.
But the Parliament introduced Section 18A, which reversed the judgement. Legality of the SC/ST amendment act (2018) was upheld in Prithvi Raj Chauhan vs UOI (2020).
Recently in Shajan Skaria vs State of Kerala (2024), the Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to Shajan Skaria, reiterating that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act does not create a blanket prohibition. The Court held that anticipatory bail is not absolutely barred under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act.
| Case | Issue | Court View |
|---|---|---|
| Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs State of Punjab | Anticipatory Bail | Bail should depend on facts and circumstances. |
| Dr Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs State of Maharashtra | SC/ST Act Restrictions | No absolute bar on anticipatory bail. |
| Prithvi Raj Chauhan Vs UOI | Validity of Amendment | Section 18A upheld. |
| Shajan Skaria vs State of Kerala | Anticipatory Bail | Blanket prohibition rejected. |
3. Registration Of FIR/Complaint
Under Section 154 of CrPC (173 BNSS), police officers are empowered to register information in cognisable cases. It is mandatory to register an FIR when the facts disclose the commission of a cognisable offence.
However, the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014) has reserved the category of some cases, such as the following:
- Matrimonial disputes or family disputes
- Commercial offences
- Medical negligence cases
- Corruption cases
In these matters, a preliminary enquiry is allowed before the registration of an FIR.
Section 18A was inserted to reverse the judgement of the Supreme Court in Kashinath Mahajan vs MH (2018), in which the apex court had held that the public servant cannot be arrested without the written permission of the appointing authority.
If the person is not a public servant, then without the written permission of the senior superintendent of police of the district, they cannot be arrested.
4. Views On Misuses Of The Provisions, False Cases And Low Conviction Rates
The Supreme Court of India and various High Courts have shown concern over misuses and false cases under the SC/ST Act and tried to strike a balance between the fundamental right of liberty and protection from atrocities.
In many instances, this protective shield for marginalised communities has been used as a weapon for blackmailing, threatening and obtaining compensation.
Low conviction rates are another concern which exposes the ineffectiveness of the provisions and failures of the executing authorities.
Strict provisions of the act allowing immediate arrest are used by the investigating bodies to fulfil their monetary desires rather than providing justice to the victim.
Major Concerns Highlighted By Courts
- Misuse of stringent provisions
- False implication in some cases
- Low conviction rates
- Ineffective implementation machinery
- Balancing liberty and victim protection
5. Exclusion Of Persons Converted To Christianity
Protection under the SC/ST Act is available only to persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
The Supreme Court has recently in Akkala Rami Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh (2025) held that having converted to Christianity, the petitioner cannot continue to be a member of the Scheduled Caste community.
Thus, he cannot seek protection under the act, and his complaint is not maintainable.
The caste system is alien to Christianity.
Conclusion
We will be celebrating our 78th Independence Day this year and still facing issues regarding caste-based atrocities.
We need to put in collective and consistent efforts.
The SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was also enacted with the purpose of protecting marginalised communities from atrocities and to secure their fundamental rights.
But these special provisions were used to take undue advantages.
The court has to dilute some of the provisions of the act to protect against harassment and misuses.
The Parliament must take notice of the reports by various authorities regarding low conviction rates, ineffective executive machinery and cases of misuse.
Major reforms are required to restructure the whole scheme of the act so that it can achieve the purpose of its enforcement.
