PROTECTION OF CIVIL RIGHTS ACT (PCRA), 1955

1. Introduction
The Indian social system has for centuries suffered social injustices by the higher
castes on the lower castes. Under the traditional social laws governing Hindu society,
the untouchables(Scheduled castes and Scheduled tribes) could not use public places
and common provisions such as ponds, pools, parks, wells etc. they were debarred
from Hindu temples, places of worship and from using roads, vehicles, ferries, schools
and public convenience. Their dress pattern also revealed their low status with most of
the men using only loin cloth. The social discrimination went to the extent of
regarding their very shadows as imminent pollutants and hence they were branded as
untouchables and were socially pollutants and residentially segregated. With all the
above said disabilities life had been miserable for scheduled castes.1
The term Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe is a defined legal term. It was adopted
in 1935, when the British listed the lowest caste and tribes of the Hindus into a
Schedule appended to the Government of India Act for the purpose of statutory
safeguard and to protect their interest. The concept of “Schedule” caste and tribes is
relevant only in the context of statutory provisions, government programs and politics.
Outside this context there is no “Schedule” caste or tribes. In a population as diverse
as India, the Schedule Caste and Tribes comprise of nearly 40% of the population as
per the last census. Born into numerous communities, each with its own identities,
traditions, but one common problem, that of being suppressed for centuries. They have
never earned the status of equals in society. In order to tackle the problem of
untouchability, the Constitution of India provides various provisions in favour of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Article 17 of the Constitution was
incorporated by the came to rescue the Scheduled Castes from the inhuman atrocities
being committed against them by the upper castes society of the country. The

1
Rattan Singh and Varinder Singh, Socio-Economic Offences in India, (Allahabad Law Agency, Allahabad,
2008) p.215

1
untouchability has been abolished and any practice of it will be an offence under
Article 17 of Indian Constitution. 2
Article 35(a)(ii) established that the Parliament shall have and legislature of a State
shall not have the power to make law for prescribing punishment for those acts which
are declared to be offences under this part. Thus only Parliament is empowered to
make laws in respect of offence of untouchability as mentioned under Article 17 which
is to ensure uniformly throughout the country. The provision of Article 35 is in
application and not retrospective. Hence, it was held in certain cases that State laws
enacted before commencing of the Constitution prohibiting untouchability were to
continue unless repealed.3

2. Protection of civil rights Act, 1955

The Parliament passed the Untouchability (Offences) Act 1955, which again was an
improved version of the Untouchability Order, 1950, in order to give effect to the
declaration made in Article 17 of the Constitution and it came into force on 1 June
1955. The object of this Act is to prescribe punishment for preaching and practice of
Untouchability, for the enforcement of any disability arising there from and for matters
connected therewith. Although the Untouchability (Offences) Act,1955, has brought
tremendous effect on the process of eradication of evil of untouchability, it was felt
that there is still scope and need to amend it further so that it may become more
comprehensive and effective in ensuring social justice to the Scheduled Castes. In
1965, the Government of India appointed a committee to review the untouchability,
economic and educational development of the Scheduled Castes. The committee
submitted its report in 1969, and the Government of India introduced a bill knows as
the untouchability (Offences) Act and Amendment and Miscellaneous Provision Bill,
in Lok Sabha in April, 1972. After examining the recommendation made by the
committee, the Parliament amended the untouchability (Offences) Act 1955 in
November, 1976 and renamed it as the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. The
Protection of Civil Rights defines the term “civil rights”. A civil right means any right

2
<http://gadegaonlia-gyanlakshayngo.blogspot.in/2012/01/article-17-of-indian-constitution.html> last
visited on 04-11-2017 at 7:09 pm
3
J.S.P. Singh, Socio-Economic Offences, (Allahabad Law Agency, Allahabad, 2005) p.387

2
accruing to a person by reason of the abolition of “untouchability” by the Article 17 of
the Constitution. Section 15-A of the Protection Civil Rights Act, 1955 imposes the
statutory duty of the State Government to ensure that the rights accruing from the
abolition of untouchability are implemented for the benefit of the weaker sections of
the society who are further subjected to social, economic and political discrimination
by branding them as untouchable.4
A number of States and Union territories had anti-disabilities laws in force between
1950 and 1955 various States like Bihar, Madras, Orissa, Mysore and Coorg had
passed the Removal of Disabilities Act the other states like Bombay, Punjab, Uttar
Pradesh, West Bengal, Hyderabad, Saurashtra and Travancore had enacted Removal of
Social Disabilities Act. Temple Entry Acts were present in Coorg, Bombay, Orissa,
Punjab, Hyderabad, Mysore and Travancore. Thus, Anti-Disabilities legislations were
present in 14 States while Temple Entry legislations were present in 7 States only, 12
States did not have either. Offences under the State Acts were punishable with
imprisonment which would extend to six months or with a fine up to Rs.500. Many of
these Acts were challenged as being unconstitutional. One ground of challenge was the
lack of legislative competency of the States in the light of Article 35 of the
Constitution that empowered only the Parliament to enact laws in relation to Part III. 5
In State v. Kishan,6 the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the
powers of State legislatures to make laws prescribing punishment for those acts that
were declared to be offences under Article 17 were withdrawn by Article 35 and now
only the Parliament is entitled to make the punishment the those act which are
prohibited under the Article 17 of Indian constitution.
According to Article 35 (a) (ii), the Parliament passed the Untouchability
(Offences) Act 1955. The Untouchability (Offences) Bill 1954, which took final shape
as The Untouchability (Offences) Act 1955 was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 15th
March 1955. The Members of Parliament while commending the bill, labeled it as a
‘belated measure’ because it took more than four years for the Government to
introduce such legislation after the promulgation of the Constitution. After inviting
4
<http://ncsc.nic.in/files/Chapter%209> last visited on 06-10-2017 at 12:10 pm
5
R.K. Kshirsagar, Untouchability In India :Its Abolition and Implementation of Law, (Deep & Deep
Publications, New Delhi, 1999).
6
AIR 1955 MP 207

3
suggestions from various organizations the bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha.
During the discussion on the Bill in the Rajya Sabha, Dr. Ambedkar had said that the
name of the legislation should be ‘The Civil Rights (Untouchables) Protection Act’ so
that it would indicate enforcement and protection of rights in addition to punishment
of offenders.7

2.1. Objectives of the Act

The Preamble of the Protection of Civil Rights Act describes it as an Act to “prescribe
punishment for the preaching and practice of “Untouchability” for the enforcement of
any disability arising there from for matters connected therewith.” The main purpose
of this Act is punishing the preaching and practice of untouchability. The title of the
Act was changed from “Untouchability Offences Act” to “Protection of Civil Rights
Act.” The changing title indicates enforcement and protection of rights in addition to
punishment of offenders.8 The Joint Select Committee recommended that “by reason
of the abolition of ‘untouchability’ certain rights are conferred on those who are
subjected to the disability of untouchability and, therefore, the law should mainly
concern itself to protect those rights. Hence, more emphasis should be laid in order to
protect those rights rather than punishing the offenders who preach or practice
untouchability in any form. Therefore, the committee feels that the short title of the
Principal Act should be changed to the Protection of Civil Rights Act.9
The change in title therefore indicates that the intention of the Legislature was to
go beyond mere punishment of the offence of untouchability and target the root cause
behind this social malaise i.e. untouchability. The Legislature wanted to create a
facilitative environment for the protection of the rights of the former untouchables.
Therefore, any study of the implementation of the Protection of Civil Rights Act
cannot be limited to studying the nature and types of punishments awarded under the
Act. It has to be a comprehensive study examining the impact of the legislation in
protecting the rights of a section of the citizens of the country.

7
Rajya Sabha Debates, Vol. VII, No.16-29 on 16th September, (1954)2431
8
Ibid.
9
“Report of Joint Committee on the Untouchability (Offences) Amendment and Miscellaneous Provision
Bill, 1972”, submitted on 22nd Feb 1974.

4
The special features of the bill as compared with the then existing state laws on the
subject are that:
(a) An untouchable would not cease to be an untouchable, if he resides in any locality
mentioned in relation to him under the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order,1950.
(b) Whoever takes any part in the excommunication of, or imposition of any social
disability on, any person who refuse to practice untouchability or does any act in
furtherance of the objects of this new law will also be guilty of offence;
(c) in addition to the normal penalty for an offence, the court may also cancel or
suspend any licence in respect of profession, trade, calling or employment when an
offence is committed under this law during the course of any such profession, trade,
calling or employment. Offences under this new law are to be cognizable.10

2.2. Offences punishable under the Act

The following Acts are punishable under Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 -:

2.2.1. Enforcing Religious Disability

The Act provides the punishment for enforcing religious disabilities. The object of
Section 3 is not to create any new rights in favour of untouchables but it is intended
only to put untouchables at par with other castes. The main purpose of section 3 is to
put Scheduled Castes at par with other Caste Hindus. According to Section 3, no
person should be refused to enter in any public place on the ground that such person is
an untouchable, where other persons professing the same religion or belonging to the
same denomination. Section 3 only includes public worship and not private worship.
Hence, where the function was a private one and it was not a place worship and the
prevention of the complainant was not on the basis of his being an untouchable as
people of his caste were allowed to participate in the function, the case did not come
under section 3 of the said Act11
In State of M.P. v. Puranchand12, the court held that section 3 indicates that if a
is person prevented from entering any place of public worship on the ground that he is
10
Supra Note 3.
11
Kandra Sethi v. Metra Sahu and Others, ILR (1963) cal 455
12
1958 CriLJ1398

5
untouchable, the act of prevention is penal on the part of the person who does it only if
the place be one of public worship and is either open to other persons professing the
same religious denomination as that person. Thus, the person prevented must either be
professing the same religion or other persons to whom the place is open or in the case
of denomination or section. It therefore follows that the section means to preserve the
distinction between the places of public worship not only belonging to different
religious but even between such place as belonging to different denominations or
sections included in one religion. Where the complainant was a Hindu, it was
necessary for the prosecution to establish that the particular temple was open to non
Hindus in general. The argument that a temple exclusively open to Jains should in the
light of the explanation be deemed to be open to Hindus in general and Harijians
should be admitted in such temples, was not taken to be correct by the high court of
Himachal Pradesh . in aforesaid case. It was laid down that the object of the provision
is not to give any new right in favour of untouchables but it is intended only to put
them at par with other caste Hindus.
In N. Adithayan v. The Travancore Devaswom Board and Other,13 an institution
was started to impart training to students joining the institution in all relevant Vedic
texts, rites, religious observances and modes of worship and for same scholars and
thanthuris were to be appointed. One other essential condition for the appointment of a
priest was that the person concerned should have been Brahmin by birth or pedigree.
The Supreme Court held that any such condition is violative of Section 3 of the
Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.

2.2.2. Social Disabilities

Section 4 established that social disabilities must be on the ground of untouchability.
Before the amendment of the Act in 1976, the Court was free to punish the accused
with imprisonment which could extend up to six months or fine which could not be
more than five hundred rupees or both. But after the above said amendment, the Court
is bound to pass sentence of imprisonment and also fine. Hence, no discretion is left

13
AIR 2002 SC 3538

6
with the Court (after amendment), once the offence was committed under section 4 of
the Act.14
In Benudhas Sahu v. State15, the court held that Section 4(iv) does not apply to
private wells because the owner of private well being free to regulate the use of well
by co-villagers. If the owner of private well permitted other people in the village to
draw water from the well, it does not means that every villager has a right of access to
or right to use the well.
One explanation has been mentioned under section 4. Explanation of section 4
lays down enforcement of any disability which includes denial of equal treatment and
discrimination on the ground of “untouchability.” Section 4 provides that:- Whoever
on the ground of ‘untouchability’ enforces against any person any disability with
regard to:-
(i) access to any shop, public restaurant, hotel or place of public entertainment; or
(ii) the use of any utensils, and other articles kept in any public restaurant, hotel,
dharamshala, sarai or musafirkhana for the use of the general public or of [any section
thereof;]or
(iii) the practice of any profession of the carrying on of any occupation, trade or
business or [employment in any job;] or
(iv) the use of, or access to, any river, stream, spring, well, tank, cistern, water-tap or
other watering place, or any bathing ghat, burial or cremation ground, any sanitary
convenience, any road, or passage, or any other place of public resort which other
members of the public, or and section thereof, have a right to use or have access to; or
(v) the use of, access to, any place used for a charitable or a public purpose maintained
wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public or any
section thereof; or
(vi) the enjoyment of any benefit under a charitable trust created for the benefit of the
general public or of any section thereof; or
(vii) the use of, or access to, any public conveyance; or

14
State of Karnataka v. Annappa and Others, (1992) Cri LJ. 158
15
ILR(1962)Cut256

7
(viii) the construction, acquisition, or occupation of any residential premises in any
locality, whatsoever; or
(ix) the use of any dharamshala, sarai or musafirkhana which is open to the general
public,or to any section thereof; or
(x) the observance of any social or religious custom, usage or ceremony or taking part
in, or taking out, any religious, social or cultural procession; or
(xi) the use of jewellery and finery; shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
of not less than one month and not more than six months and also with fine which
shall be not less than one hundred rupees and not more than five hundred rupees.16

2.2.3. Refusing to admit persons to hospitals etc.

If any person refuses any person for admission to any hospital, dispensary, educational
institution or any hostel, shall be liable for 166 punishment under this Act.Section 5
lays down that whoever on the ground of “untouchability” refuses admission to any
person to any hospital, dispensary, educational institution which is established or
maintained for the benefit of the general public or any section thereof. Section 5(b)
explains that if any person does any act which discriminates against any such person
after admission to any of the aforesaid institutions, shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term of not less than one month and not more than six months and
also with fine which shall not be less than one hundred and not more than five hundred
rupees.17
In State of Karanataka v. Appa Balu Ingale18, it was said that the thrust of Article
17 of the Constitution and the Protection of Civil Rights Act is to liberate the society
from blind and ritualistic adherence to traditional beliefs which have lost legal or
moral base in modern Indian society today. In this case it is proved beyond doubt that
the complainants were stopped from taking water from the well on the ground that
they were untouchables.
Section 5 read as follows:- Whoever on the ground of “untouchability” :-

16
Section 4, Protection of civil rights Act, 1955
17
Section 5, Protection of civil rights Act, 1955
18
1993 JIC 229

8
(a) refuses admission to any person to any hospital, dispensary, educational institution
or any hostel, if such hospital, dispensary, educational institution or hostel is
established or maintained for the benefit of the general public or any section thereof;
or
(b) Does any act which discriminates against any such person after admission to any
of the aforesaid institutions, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term of not
less than one month and not more than six months and also with fine which shall not
be less than one hundred rupees.19

2.2.4. Refusing to sell goods or render service

Section 6 makes punishment for refusing to sell goods or refusing to render any
service to any person on the ground of the “untouchability” at the same time and place
and on the same terms and conditions at or which such goods are sold or services are
rendered to other persons in the ordinary course of business [shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term of not less than one month and not more than six months and
also with fine which shall be not less than one hundred rupees and not more than five
hundred rupees.20
In Dul Chand v. State21, the court held that if accused refused to cut hair of the
complainant only on the ground that he was ‘untouchable’ it was considered to be an
act punishable under section 6 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.

2.2.5. Compulsory Labour

Section 7 (A) is inserted by the Amendment Act,1976 with view to prevent unlawful
compulsory labour. When a person compels any person to do any work of sweeping,
scavenging, to remove any carcass, to flay any animal or to do any other job of a
similar nature on the ground of untouchability, shall be deemed to have enforced a
disability arising out of untouchability and will be liable under this Section. The word
‘compulsion’ has been defined as including a threat of social or economic boycott.
Section 7A reads as under:- (1) Whoever compels any person, on the ground of
19
Substituted by section 7, Amendment Act, 1976
20
Substituted by Amendment Act, 1976, Section 8.
21
1963 MPLJ (Notes) 52

9
“untouchability”, to do any scavenging or sweeping or to remove any carcass or to flay
any animal to remove the umbilical cord or to do any other job of a similar nature,
shall be deemed to have enforced a disability arising out of “untouchability”. (2)
Whoever is deemed under sub-section (1) to have enforced a disability arising out of
“untouchability” shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be
less than three months and not more than six months and also with fine which shall not
be less than one hundred rupees and not more than five hundred rupees.22

2.2.6. Other Offences

1. Such person shall be punishable under law who does any of the following:23
a) Prevents any person from acquiring rights provided under Art 17 of the Constitution
of India; or,
b) Molests, insults, boycotts or create an obstruction in exercising the right; or
c) Molests, insults, boycotts any person who has exercised his rights; or
d) By any manner, spoken or written encourages or incites any person to practice
“Untouchability”; or
e) Insults or attempts to insult any person on the ground of “Untouchability”
2. The person24
a) Who on the ground of “Untouchability” denies any person the rights and privileges
available to that person being a part of that community; or,
b) Who excommunicates with the person who has denied to practice “Untouchability”.
Punishment: - Such person shall be punished with the imprisonment for the term of at
least one month but not exceeding 6 months along with the fine of at least 100 Rs. But
not more than Rs. 500.

3. Conclusion
Caste system in India is so rigidly deep-rooted in its socio-cultural and religious life
that it now almost has God-given approval behind it. And anything against or in
opposition of this system is considered to be a sin or disrespectful to God. But in
22
Section 7A (1) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955,
23
Section 7(1) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955
24
Section 7(2) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955,

10
reality it is no God-send virtue to be followed by the people. It has had several
exploitative and discriminatory effects on our social order throughout the ages. As a
by-product, caste system has given several other social ills to the society such as
Untouchability. The system is still continuing in India as a well-established and sacred
customary rule and is followed by almost everyone regardless of their economic or
social status. Though the younger generation is discarding such social norms but still
the system is well-entrenched in our socio-religious beliefs. India cannot become a
truly modern country in the 21st century, if it fails to abolish this discriminatory
practice based on caste. The biggest problem in abolishing and removing this menace
from the society is the in general social acceptability of the same. Until and unless this
changes no hope is there. Because law can provide protection from exploitation but it
cannot bring attitudinal change in so-called upper castes. The young and modern
generation is perhaps the only hope in bringing about the real meaning of social justice
in our country.

11