Hate Crime and Anti-Discrimination Laws in

India
Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989
Analysis

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................. 2
OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................................... 4
PROVISIONS AND FEATURES ....................................................................................... 6
SPECIAL COURTS......................................................................................................... 7
INVESTIGATION ........................................................................................................... 7
COMPENSATION .......................................................................................................... 8
MIGRATION ................................................................................................................... 8
DRAWBACKS .................................................................................................................... 8
AMENDMENTS ............................................................................................................... 13
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 15
BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................. 18

INTRODUCTION

The Preamble of the Constitution starts with the words “We the People”, as to signify that this
country would be constituted as a Republic, where each and every member would be a citizen
and considered equal before the law. With this object in mind, the government has introduced
several anti-discrimination laws against hate crime, to fulfil the aspirations of equality and
justice as enshrined in the Constitution, that are fundamental to the functioning of any moral
society.
The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and other
similar acts were passed to confront the deep inequality that is prevalent in Indian culture, by
aiming for the inclusion of Dalits and Scheduled Tribes into mainstream society by countering
the various ways in which discrimination against oppressed classes is carried out.

The preamble of the Act states that the Act is:

"to prevent the commission of offences of atrocities against the members of Scheduled Castes
and Tribes, to provide for Special Courts for the trial of such offences and for the relief and
rehabilitation of the victims of such offences and for matters connected therewith or incidental
thereto".
The scope of the Act is drawn from Article 15 which states – “The State shall not discriminate
against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.”

BACKGROUND

The Constitution of India was not merely meant to establish the institutional framework for
running the country, but was supposed to herald in a social transformation of the nation, that
would bridge the vast gap in wealth, social status and opportunities between different castes
and classes, that had existed for time immemorial in India.

Article 14 lays down that all people would be equal before the law, Article 17 abolishes the
practice of untouchability, and Article 46 states “The State shall promote with special care the
educational and economic interests of the weaker section of the people and in particular of the
Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms
of exploitation”. Furthermore, the 5th Fundamental Duty of all Indian citizens states – “To
promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India
transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities.”

However, after Independence, hate-crimes and massacres of Dalits remained prevalent across
the country. The post-Independence era was marked by frequent instances of atrocities
springing up across the country. For example, the Ramanathapuram riots of 1957, which
erupted in the aftermath of the Madras Legislative Assembly Elections earlier that year, where
popular Dalit activist Immanuel Sekaran. In North India, massacres of Dalits by upper-caste
landlords in rural Bihar and Uttar Pradesh continued, with the police either being apathetic or
even collaborative to these crimes, as many of these landowners could not orient themselves
towards democratic society, and could not cope with the rapid dismemberment of their feudal
systems. The practice of ‘untouchability’, though outlawed by Article 17 of the Constitution,
continued to persist in many areas. Due to many legal loopholes, and with the state machinery
not efficient enough, many of these crimes went unpunished. The true extent and gravity of the
situation was not recognized by either the State or Central Governments.

This is why, the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 was passed, but it proved insufficient in
tackling the issue of caste. It made untouchability a criminal offence, and also laid down
punishments for discrimination on this basis. It included the exclusion of Dalits to all public
spaces, including places of worship, shops, hotels, cremation grounds etc. and also covered
enforcing professional or occupational disabilities, denying, refusing any person from carrying
out a profession, injuring, molesting, boycotting or excommunicating a person on the basis of
untouchability. From 1976 onwards the Act was renamed as the ‘Protection of Civil Rights
Act’. Despite various measures adopted to improve the socio-economic conditions of the SCs
and STs and uplift them, they remained a vulnerable community and subject to humiliation,
discrimination and harassment, and atrocities continued to go unpunished. The normal
provisions of the existing laws of Indian Penal Code and Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955
were found to be inadequate to check these atrocities.

All such events shook the then national leadership. Hence, under pressure from Dalit MPs, the
Government of India started monitoring atrocities against Dalits from 1974, and in the case of
Adivasis from the 1981 onwards, with special focus on murder, rape, arson and grievous hurt.

A study conducted by the National Commission for SCs and STs in 1990 on Atrocities on
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes: Causes and Remedies pointed out various causal
factors for atrocities: land disputes, bonded labour, indebtedness, non-payment of minimum
wages, caste prejudice and practice of untouchability, political factions on caste lines, refusal
to perform traditional works such as digging burial pits, arranging cremations, removing
carcasses of dead animals etc. The very foundation of this can be traced back to the caste
system, which "encompasses a complete ordering of social groups on the basis of the so-called
ritual purity. A person is considered a member of the caste into which s/he is born and remains
within that caste until death…."1

In light of this whole situation, the Government found it a necessity to introduce a piece of
legislation that would deal specifically with violent crimes based on caste, and thus the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was passed, and
based on those, the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules,
1995.

OBJECTIVES

The word ‘atrocity’ was unknown in any legislation before the commencement of this Act.
According to the Act itself, ‘atrocity’ is merely defined as whatever are registered as offences
under Section 3 of the Act. A more specific meaning could be defined as –

1. Atrocity is an “expression commonly used to refer to crimes against the SCs and STs
in India”.
2. It “denotes the quality of being shockingly cruel and inhumane, whereas the term crime
relates to an act punishable by law” 2.
3. It implies “any offence under the Indian Penal Code committed against SCs and STs
by non SC and ST persons. Caste consideration as a motive is not necessary to make
such an offence of atrocity” 3.

The objective of this piece of legislation was outlined when the Bill was first introduced in the
Lok Sabha:

“Despite various measures to improve the socio-economic conditions of the SCs and STs, they
remain vulnerable… They have, in several brutal incidents, been deprived of their life and
property… Because of the awareness created, through spread of education, e.t.c, when they
assert their rights and resist the practice of untouchability against them or demand statutory

1
Parliamentary Committee on the Welfare of SCs & STs, 4th Report 2004-05, New Delhi, 2005, para
1.2.
2
Ibid. Para 1.1.
3
Clarification by Home Ministry of Home Affairs, noted in NHRC, Report on Prevention of Atrocities
against SCs, New Delhi, 2002, p.28.
minimum wages or refuse to do any bonded and forced labour, the vested interests try to cow
them down and terrorize them. When the SCs and STs try to preserve their self-respect or
honour of their women, they become irritants for the dominant and the mighty…

Under the circumstances, the existing laws like the Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955 and the
normal provisions of the Indian Penal Code have been found to be inadequate to check and
deter crimes against them committed by non-SCs and non-STs… It is considered necessary that
not only the term ‘atrocity’ should be defined, but also stringent measures should be introduced
to provide for higher punishment for committing such atrocities. It is also proposed to enjoin
on the States and Union Territories to take specific preventive and punitive measures to protect
SCs and STs from being victimized and, where atrocities are committed, to provide adequate
relief and assistance to rehabilitate them.”

The Act lists 22 offences relating to various criminal offences for breaking the respect and self-
esteem of SCs and STs, bonded-labour, denial of democratic and social rights, discrimination,
harassment, exploitation and misuse of the legal process, etc.
 PROVISIONS AND FEATURES

The common denominator of the offences is that criminal liability can only be established if
the offence is committed by a person who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe against a person who belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.

SALIENT FEATURES

Some of the major salient features of the Act are :-

1. Creation of new types of offences not in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or in the Protection
of Civil Rights Act 1955 (PCRA).
2. Defines various types of atrocities against SCs/STs.
3. Prescribes stringent punishment for such atrocities.
4. Punishment for neglect of duties by a public servant.
5. Externment of potential offenders.
6. Creation of Special Courts.
7. Appointment of Special Public Prosecutors.
8. Cancellation of arms licences in the areas identified where an atrocity may take place or
has taken place and seize all illegal fire arms.
9. Setting up a mandatory, periodic monitoring system at different levels.

Together with the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Rules, 1995, it provides a framework for monitoring the state response to the atrocities
against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. According to the Act and Rules, there are to
be monthly reports (from the District Magistrates), quarterly review meetings at the district
level by the District Monitoring and Vigilance Committee (DVMC) and half yearly reviews
by a 25-member State Monitoring and Vigilance Committee (SVMC) the chaired by the
Chief Minister. The performance of every Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) will also have to
be reviewed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) every quarter. Annual reports have
to be sent to the central government by 31 March every year.4

4
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, p. 9-10.
SPECIAL COURTS

In Section 14 of the Act – “For the purpose of providing for speedy trial, the State
Government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by
notification in the Official Gazette, establish an Exclusive Special Court for one or more
District.”

The Act is empowered to constitute a Court of Session to be a Special Court. The Court of
Sessions has been given the power to conduct the trial and no other court is allowed under
this act. However, the trial is only valid when it is on committal of case by the Court of
Magistrate having jurisdiction of it. The Special Court does not have the jurisdiction to
entertain a complaint without committal of a magistrate Court. Rule 13(i) mandates that the
judge in a special court be sensitive with right aptitude and understanding of the problems of
the SCs and STs.

INVESTIGATION

According to Rule 7(1) investigation of an offence committed under the SC/ST Act cannot be
investigated by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP).

Several courts have held this rule as mandatory, and set aside cases that have not followed this
procedure. The Madras High Court in M. Kathiresam v. State of Tamil Nadu5 held that
investigation conducted by an officer other than a DSP is improper and bad in law and
proceedings based on such an investigation are required to be quashed. The reason for this is
that higher-ranking officers are better-trained and less likely to succumb to societal pressure,
unlike junior officers, who might be biased.

A drawback of this is that there are not enough sufficient officers at this level to manage such
a system. Of the total posts sanctioned by the government under Indian Police Service (IPS)
more than 15 percent of the posts are vacant. This basically means that there is one IPS officer
for 77,000 SC/STs.

5
1999 Cr LJ 3938
COMPENSATION

Under Annexure I, the Relief Amounts are given for various atrocities, these are updated
periodically. They currently range from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 50,000.

Atrocities often take place when persons belonging to the SC/ST community do not do their
“caste professions” which are their ancestral jobs, or break the caste boundaries such as sitting
in the bus, keeping a moustache or riding a horse — often the preserve of the dominant castes.
Atrocities are often a form of collective punishment for daring to break these customs, and the
atrocity is to bring them back into the situation of total dependence and servitude. The state
therefore has the duty to help the community back on its feet.

MIGRATION

Under constitutional provisions, a caste or tribe is notified with reference to a State or Union
territory. A person born in the State will receive a SC or ST caste certificate, but if they migrate
to another state, they will lose the benefits that is accorded to them i.e. benefit of admission in
educational institutes, reservation in government employment and so on. However, the
protections granted to them under the Act will remain. Once a person is notified as SC/ST in
any state/UT, they are protected under the SCs and STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
throughout the country, irrespective of whether the particular caste or tribe is notified in the
state/UT where the offence is committed.

DRAWBACKS

A major issue of the Act is that most cases deal with the punishments after the crime has already
been committed, and not actually stopping the crimes themselves. Little is done to prevent
atrocities. Furthermore, the scope of the Act has continually been diluted by subsequent
judgements.
1. Caste Bias

While prosecuting cases under the Act, courts have held that the caste bias must be proved. For
example, the Kerala High Court, in Stephen Joseph v. State of Kerala, 20096 which was a case
of the rape of a Scheduled Tribe minor girl, held that in order for the Act’s provisions to be
valid, the crime must’ve been committed because of the girl’s race. The Court held that there
was nothing on record to show that the crime was committed by the accused solely due to the
girl’s Scheduled Tribe status, and thus held that the provisions of the Act could not be applied.

In Asharfi v State of Uttar Pradesh, 20177 too, where a Dalit woman was raped, the Supreme
Court held that the evidence and materials on record do not show that the appellant had
committed rape on the victim on the ground that she belonged to Scheduled Caste and that the
sections of the Act can be pressed into service only if it is proved that the rape has been
committed because the victim belonged to the Scheduled Caste community.

In Ramdas & Ors. vs The State of Maharashtra, 20068 a minor girl belonging to the SC
community was raped. The court stated that the mere fact that the victim happened to be a girl
belonging to SC would not attract the provisions of the Act.

The caste bias is based on the premise that the offence should be committed only on the ground
of caste prejudice, and not on anything else. Not only is such intention very difficult to prove
in court, such a view does not take into account any form of intersectional discrimination,
where crimes are a result of discrimination on the basis of caste, gender or class, such as in the
case of rape. This has resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice.

2. Private Abuses not Included

Section 3(1)(r) of the Act punishes any insult or intimidation with the intent to humiliate a
member of SC/ST in any place within the public view.

This section has been interpreted quite narrowly. In Victor Paul and Another v. State9, the
Madras High Court held that the public should have viewed the incident irrespective of the

6
2013 (2) KHC 37
7
AIR 2017 SC 5819
8
AIR 2007 SC 155
9
Crl.App.No.234 of 1994
place where the offence is committed. Judicial observations have further gone on to say that
the insult should only be in the presence of people who are independent people and not friends
and relatives. Therefore, a major drawback of the Act is that it does not cover occasions where
the abuse is used in in a private place in the presence of people who happen to be friends, or
relatives.

In Pardeep Kumar v. the State of Haryana10, the Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to
include the provisions under the Act where the usage of caste-based remarks was done over a
mobile phone call and in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra11, where the
complainant was abused on the grounds of her caste identity on WhatsApp Messages, the apex
court held that no offence under the Act is made out as the messages were not in public view.

3. Misuse and False Cases

There has also been concern regarding misuse of the act for settling of personal grudges.

75% cases were found to be false in Madhya Pradesh according to the MP High Court Bar
Association12, while in Rajasthan, according to the police, almost 40% of cases were registered
as fake.13

The Supreme Court found false cases and abuse of the Act in its decision in Subhash Kashinath
Mahajan v. Maharashtra and Anr.14 in March 2018. In addition to questioning the prohibition
of anticipatory bail in Section 18 of the Act for crimes committed under the Act, the court also
formulated guidelines that diluted some of the provisions of the Act. [36] The court granted
additional powers to the investigating officer to conduct a preliminary investigation before
filing a complaint. Further, written permission of the appointing authority for all public officials
and of the District Superintendent of Police for other persons is required before a complaint is
registered.

These provisions are necessary to make sure innocent people are not convicted under the Act,
but at the same time it has increased the time-period and the great scope that the Act originally
envisioned.

10
CRR No. 1354 & 1574 of 2019
11
SLP (Crl) No. 2712 of 2019
12
“75% Acquittals in SC/ST Act: HC Bar Association.” The Times of India, 2018.
13
“40% cases filed under SC/ST Act fake: Rajasthan Police”. The Indian Express, 2021.
14
(2018) 6 SCC 454
4. Lack of Special Courts

There shall be an exclusively special designated court in every district to look after only to this
atrocity cases.

The actual implementation of this seems to be lacking. Special Court Justice Ramaswamy
observed in the case of State of Karnataka v. Ingal15. that more than 75% of the cases brought
under the SC/ST Act end in acquittal. The situation has not improved much since 1992
according to the figures given by the 2002 Annual Report dealing with SC/ST Act. Of the total
cases filed in 2002 only 21.72% were disposed of, and, of those, only 2.31% ended in
conviction. The number of acquittals is more than 6x than the number of convictions and more
than 70 percent of the cases are still pending (according to Census Data).

Hostile witnesses are the major reason for high rate of acquittals in the atrocity cases. The
economic dependency on the upper and dominant castes, and the state of insecurity, has
forced the prosecution witnesses in many a case to turn hostile.

Karnataka has only eight Special courts, though 15 of 30 districts are declared 'atrocity prone'.
Overall conviction rates remain at or below 5%. Even the few special courts seem to be biased.
In 2010, of the 101 cases disposed of in the Tumkur special court, not one was convicted.
Gulbarga, another atrocity prone district had a conviction rate of just 2%. 7 districts had a
conviction rate of 0% in 2010.16

5. Poor Implementation

As per a study conducted by the Planning Commission17, most of the administrative

machinery officials, court officers and police officers are of the opinion that the SCs and STs
are misusing the special law against their rivals and adversaries. As a result of this
impression most of the Judges are skeptical and wary of awarding convictions.

According to the same study, cases are not registered nearly equal to the number of atrocities
done. When the complainant reached the police station, many police officers try to

15
(1992) 3 S.C.R. 284
16
Karnataka State Report on the Implementation of the SCs & STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989
in Karnataka. 2010.
17
Study Report on the Crimes and Atrocities Against SCs & STs with Special Reference to
Implementation of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and the Prevention of Atrocities
Act, 1989. Sponsored by the Planning Commission.
compromise the case. Police officials do not want to redress the issue, visit the scene
of crime, register the case immediately and empower the weaker sections. In most of the
cases the cases are not registered in the time limit i.e. 30 days and due to this most of
the victims lose time, courage and do not pursue the case.18

The legal system is full of contradictions. Although the legal text explicitly seeks relief, the
implementation of the text seems to evade actual performance. Laws and legal procedures are
not automatically enforced; they depend on administrative structures and judicial institutions,
and if the judiciary itself is apathetic or biased, then the powers of the Act remain merely on
text.

Over the years, law enforcers involved in protecting the weak, oppressed, and socially
disadvantaged have reacted increasingly indifferent, and the system has failed to provide self-
correction. The problem is that victims of atrocities not only suffer physical and mental pain,
but also have a sense of insecurity and social avoidance that victims of other crimes do not
have. If the judges entrusted to protect them show indifference, it will only further aggravate
their already vulnerable situation. And so, any sort of attempt to integrate the community into
the mainstream position will fail.

18
Ibid. p.145.
 AMENDMENTS

SCS AND STS (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT 2015

• The bill replaces the SCs and STs Amendment Ordinance of 2014, that was not ratified
in Parliament.

• New offences added under the Bill include: (a) garlanding with footwear, (b)
compelling to dispose or carry human or animal carcasses, or do manual scavenging,
(c) abusing SCs or STs by caste name in public, (d) attempting to promote feelings of
ill-will against SCs or STs or disrespecting any deceased person held in high esteem,
and (e) imposing or threatening a social or economic boycott.

• The court shall presume that the accused was aware of the caste or tribal identity of
the victim if the accused had personal knowledge of the victim or his family, unless
the contrary is proved.

• Addition of IPC offences attracting committed against Dalits or Adivasis as punishable

offences under the POA Act. Before, only those offences listed in IPC as attracting
punishment of 10 years or more and committed on Dalits/ Adivasis were accepted as
offences falling under the POA Act. A number of commonly committed offences (hurt,
grievous hurt, intimidation, kidnapping etc.) were excluded from the Act. Therefore, a
Schedule of list of IPC offences was provided in the amended act.

• Under the Act, a court of Session at the district level is deemed a Special Court to
provide speedy trials for offences. A Special Public Prosecutor is appointed to conduct
cases in this court. The new Bill changes this provision and specifies that an Exclusive
Special Court must be established at the district level to try offences under the Bill. An
adequate number of courts must be established to make sure that cases are disposed of
in two months. Appeals of these courts shall be to the high court, and must be disposed
of within three months. A Public Prosecutor and Exclusive Public Prosecutor shall be
appointed for every Special Court and Exclusive Special Court respectively. This was
done to make up for the lack of Special Courts speed up the adjudication process.
 • Clarifying the term "intentional negligence" of civil servants at all levels, starting from
the registration of complaints, and cover the dereliction of duty prescribed by this law.
Article 4 of this law does not clearly define what is "intentional negligence" of a civil
servant. Therefore, the definition of "intentional negligence" is to list specific
violations: for example, the police did not accurately write down the victim's complaint;
did not read the recorded content to the victim before obtaining their signature; failed
to register FIR under the Act ; it was not registered in accordance with the appropriate
part of the law; etc.

• The Bill adds a chapter on the rights of victims and witness. It shall be the duty of the
state to make arrangements for the protection of victims, their dependents and
witnesses. The state government shall specify a scheme to ensure the implementation
of rights of victims and witnesses.

SCS AND STS (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT 2018

• In 2018, the Supreme Court stated that for persons accused of committing an offence
under the Act, approval of the Senior Superintendent of Police will be required before
an arrest is made.

• Further, the Deputy Superintendent of Police may conduct a preliminary enquiry to find
out whether there is a prima facie case under the Act. The Bill states that the
investigating officer will not require the approval of any authority for the arrest of an
accused.

• Further, it provides that a preliminary enquiry will not be required for the registration
of a First Information Report against a person accused under the Act. The Act states
that persons accused of committing an offence under the Act cannot apply for
anticipatory bail. The Bill seeks to clarify that this provision will apply despite any
judgements or orders of a court that provide otherwise.
 CONCLUSION

Therefore, the goal of the bill clearly emphasizes that the government aims to provide justice
to these communities through active efforts to enable these communities to live in society
with dignity and self-esteem, without fear, violence, or suppression from mainstream castes.

Section 21(1) and (2) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 stipulate that the State Government shall
take all such measures as may be necessary for its effective implementation. However,
despite the Act and Rules, the situation has not changed much.

The purpose of the Act was to help the social inclusion of Dalits into Indian society, but the
Act has failed to live up to its expectations. This was even admitted by the Union Minister for
Home Affairs, P. Chidambaram, in Parliament in 2010 –

“This is a subject on which all of us should understand the historical injustice that has been
heaped upon the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In fact, it goes back to the origins
of society, as we know it, and the divisions in society. Over the years, instead of these
divisions becoming narrower, these divisions have become deeply entrenched. There are
other divisions in society but the most cruel, the most humiliating and the most dehumanizing
are with regard certain castes as “untouchables”. As a result of that, we, today, have a
number of castes which are described as Scheduled Castes…

Parliament has made a number of laws, the general laws, the IPC and other laws. But we
made two special laws. First is the Protection of Civil Rights Act of 1955, in short called the
PCA and the other is the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Prevention of Atrocities Act
of 1989, in short called the POA. These two Acts in my view, empower sufficiently the States
to take action if the State has the intention, the mind and the will to take action. In fact, hon.
Members will agree with me that adding to the laws does not make the enforcement more
effective. It is the implementation of the existing laws and the intention to implement the
laws; the will to implement the laws that makes enforcement of laws effective. We make
more and more laws. But if the enforcement is lax, if the enforcement is poor, then merely
adding to the body of laws does not make a difference.

I must concede that the statistics do not reflect any decline in the atrocities. On the contrary,
the information compiled by the Crime Records Bureau shows that the number of cases
registered of atrocities against the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes is, in fact, on
the rise….

Therefore, it is fair to conclude that the feeling amongst the Scheduled Castes and the
Schedule Tribes that all these laws and all these statements, all these pronouncements have
really not brought any relief to them. That feeling is running high and I cannot but say that
feeling is justified.”19

Thus, like with many other pieces of legislation in this country that are built on the best of
intentions, vision is not lacking and the scope is expansive, but the actual implementation on
the ground, the actual effects it has on the society as a whole, is forever insufficient to tackle
the colossal problems that the country faces.

National Crimes Record Bureau, 2019 1

19
"Home Minister P Chidambaram in Lok Sabha (Lower House of Indian Parliament) on 30 August
2010".
In 2020 alone, 50,291 cases were registered for crimes committed against Scheduled Castes
(SCs), an increase of 9.4 per cent over 2019 (45,961 cases). The highest of 12,714 cases (25.2
per cent) of crimes against SCs in 2020 were from Uttar Pradesh followed by 7,368 (14.6 per
cent) in Bihar, 7,017 (13.9 per cent) in Rajasthan, 6,899 (13.7 per cent) in Madhya Pradesh
and 2,569 (5.1 per cent) in Maharashtra.20

As, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar once noted, “when law enforcement agency- the police and judiciary
does not seem to be free from caste prejudice, expecting the law to ensure justice to victims
of caste crime is rather an impractical solution to a perennial problem.” Therefore, unless the
understanding of caste-based discrimination undergoes a transformative change, the door to
justice envisaged in the Indian Constitution will remain a distant dream.

20
“Crimes against SCs, STs went up in 2020; UP, MP top charts: NCRB.” Business Standard, 2020.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995

Parliamentary Committee on the Welfare of SCs & STs, 4th Report 2004-05, New Delhi, 2005.

Report on Prevention of Atrocities against SCs, New Delhi, 2002.

Karnataka State Report on the Implementation of the SCs&STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
1989 in Karnataka. 2010.

Study Report on the Crimes and Atrocities Against SCs & STs with Special Reference
to Implementation of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and the Prevention of
Atrocities Act, 1989. Sponsored by the Planning Commission.

https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/crimes-against-scs-sts-went-up-
in-2020-up-mp-top-charts-ncrb-data-121091601048_1.html

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bhopal/75-acquittals-in-sc/st-act-hc-bar-
association/articleshow/65932490.cms

https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/jaipur/40-cases-filed-under-sc-st-act-fake-
rajasthan-police-7144746/

CASES

State of Karnataka v. Ingal (1992) 3 S.C.R. 284

M. Kathiresam v. State of Tamil Nadu 1999 Cr LJ 3938

Stephen Joseph v. State of Kerala, 2009 2013 (2) KHC 37

Asharfi v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2017 AIR 2017 SC 5819
Ramdas & Ors. vs The State of Maharashtra, 2006 AIR 2007 SC 155

Victor Paul and Another v. State Crl.App.No.234 of 1994

Pardeep Kumar v. the State of Haryana CRR No. 1354 & 1574 of 2019

Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra SLP (Crl) No. 2712 of 2019

Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. Maharashtra and Anr (2018) 6 SCC 454