Context:

A recent government report has highlighted the concerning state of untouchability cases in India, with a pendency rate of over 97% in courts and nearly all disposed cases resulting in acquittals. The Protection of Civil Rights Act (PCR Act), 1955, aims to define and penalize various manifestations of untouchability, but the data suggests that the law is not being effectively implemented.

Untouchability in India:

• Untouchability is a discriminatory practice affecting Scheduled Castes (Dalits) and schedule tribes. It involves exclusion from public life, resources, and social services.
• Despite the constitutional abolition of untouchability under Article 17 and the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, it persists in subtle and overt forms.

Key Findings:

·        Decline in registered cases: The number of cases registered under the PCR Act has declined, with only 13 cases reported in 2022, down from 24 in 2021 and 25 in 2020.

·        High pendency rate: The pendency rate of cases in courts remains alarmingly high at over 97%, with 1,242 cases pending trial under the Act.

·        Acquittals dominate disposed cases: Of the 31 cases disposed of by courts in 2022, only one resulted in a conviction, while the remaining 30 ended in acquittals. This trend is consistent with previous years, where all 37 PCR Act cases disposed of between 2019 and 2021 also ended in acquittals.

Comparison with Other Laws:

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act: In contrast to the PCR Act, the number of cases registered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has risen steadily, with 62,501 cases reported in 2022.

Implementation Challenges:

·        Lack of data: Several states, including Bihar, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, and Jharkhand, did not provide data regarding inter-caste marriage incentives, while some states like Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, and Lakshadweep submitted "NIL" information.

·        Inconsistent implementation: The report highlights the inconsistent implementation of the PCR Act across states, with some states not providing inputs despite repeated reminders.

Others factors:

·         Weak investigation and prosecution

·         Lack of evidence or hostile witnesses

·         Societal and systemic bias

·         Overlap with the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which has become the preferred legal framework for serious caste-based discrimination cases since its enactment in 1989

 Conclusion:

The high pendency rate and acquittal-dominated disposed cases under the PCR Act raise serious concerns about the effectiveness of the law in addressing untouchability. The government must take concrete steps to improve the implementation of the Act, including increasing awareness, providing training to law enforcement agencies, and ensuring that cases are investigated and prosecuted effectively. Additionally, the government should work to address the inconsistencies in data collection and implementation across states.