Caste atrocities

Caste atrocities’ refers to the discriminatory, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment inflicted on individuals and communities because of caste, which is a hereditary and descent-based system of rigid social stratification. In the Indian context, caste atrocities are most often directed at Scheduled Castes (Dalits) and Scheduled Tribes, who have long been subjected to systematic exclusion, exploitation and violence. These atrocities include extreme acts such as murder, gang rape and torture, as well as forms of everyday oppression such as coercion, intimidation, harassment, cheating, insults, humiliation, social ostracism and economic boycotts. Central to this reality is the practice of untouchability, which imposes social disabilities on Dalits solely because of their birth, consigning them to a lifetime of marginalisation and abuse. Caste atrocities therefore encompass both violent and non-violent acts, reinforced by structures of discrimination that permeate social, economic and cultural life.

Official Definition of 'Caste Atrocities'

There is no explicit definition of ‘Caste Atrocities’ in any legislation as such. But we can infer the definition from the purpose and the definition of ‘atrocity’ provided in Section 2(1)(a) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

'Caste Atrocities' as defined in the legislations

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

‘Atrocity’, as defined in Section 2(1)(a) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, lists acts punishable under Section 3. Section 3 of the act excludes the liability for the members of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe.

List of Atrocity

Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 sets out a wide range of acts that are criminalised when committed against members of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes, recognising that such acts are rooted in caste-based prejudice and intended to humiliate, dominate or oppress.

Section 3(1) and Section 3(2) of the SC/ST Act differ fundamentally in their classification basis and nature of offences. Section 3(1) criminalises direct caste-based acts of indignity and humiliation that are defined exclusively within the Act itself, encompassing 30 distinct offences such as forcing consumption of inedible substances, public humiliation, etc. These are standalone atrocities rooted in caste oppression that ordinary criminal law cannot adequately address. Punishment ranges from six months to five years' imprisonment.

Section 3(2), by contrast, operates as an aggravating provision for serious IPC offences committed with caste-based motivation. The distinguishing feature is the mens rea requirement: these offences mandate specific knowledge or caste-based motivation, expressed through phrases such as 'knowing that' or 'on the ground that' the victim is a member of the SC/ST community. Punishments are substantially more severe, including life imprisonment and even capital punishment in cases of false evidence resulting in execution.

Offences under Section 3(1)

Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, commits any of the following acts against a member of an SC or ST -

(a) Forces a member of an SC/ST to eat or drink inedible or obnoxious substances.

(b) Acts with intent to cause injury, insult, or annoyance by dumping excreta, waste matter, carcasses, or any other obnoxious substance in his premises or neighbourhood.

(c) Removes clothes, parades naked or semi-naked in public view, or commits any act which is derogatory to human dignity.

(d) Wrongfully occupies or cultivates land owned by, or allotted to, or notified by competent authority to be allotted to, a member of an SC/ST, or gets possession transferred.

(e) Wrongfully dispossesses a member of an SC/ST from his land or premises or interferes with the enjoyment of his rights over such land, premises, or water.

(f) Compels or entices a member of an SC/ST to do begar or other similar forms of forced or bonded labour other than compulsory service for public purposes imposed by Government.

(g) Forces a member of an SC/ST to dispose or carry human or animal carcasses or to do manual scavenging.

(h) Makes a member of an SC/ST perform or engage in any traditional, harmful, or inhuman practice.

(i) Forces a member of an SC/ST to do any act which violates human dignity.

(j) Intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of an SC/ST in any place within public view.

(k) Abuses any member of an SC/ST by caste name in any place within public view.

(l) Destroys, damages, or defiles any object generally held sacred or in high esteem by members of an SC/ST.

(m) Wrongfully causes injury or annoyance to a member of an SC/ST by corrupt or illegal means or by using his influence.

(n) Denies a member of an SC/ST any customary right of passage to a place of public resort, or obstructs the use of any public place or other facilities.

(o) Forces or causes a member of an SC/ST to leave his house, village, or residence.

(p) Gives false or frivolous information to any public servant causing such public servant to use his lawful power to injure or annoy a member of an SC/ST.

(q) Intentionally insults or intimidates a woman belonging to an SC/ST with intent to outrage her modesty.

(r) Assaults or uses force to any woman belonging to an SC/ST with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty.

(s) Being in a position to dominate the will of a woman belonging to an SC/ST, uses that position to exploit her sexually to which she would not have otherwise consented.

(t) Denies a member of an SC/ST the right to vote or forces him to vote in a particular manner.

(u) Institutes false, malicious, or vexatious legal proceedings against a member of an SC/ST.

(v) Gives or fabricates false evidence intending to cause a member of an SC/ST to be convicted of an offence which is capital or punishable with imprisonment for seven years or more. (If an innocent SC/ST person is convicted and executed due to such false evidence, the offender shall be punishable with death.)

(w) Commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property knowing that such person is an SC/ST member.

(x) Promotes or attempts to promote feelings of enmity, hatred, or ill-will against members of SC/ST.

(y) Intentionally touches a woman belonging to an SC/ST in a sexual manner without her consent.

(z) Uses words, acts, or gestures of a sexual nature towards a woman belonging to an SC/ST.

(za) Corrupts or fouls the water of any spring, reservoir, or other source ordinarily used by members of SC/ST so as to render it less fit for their use.

(zb) Denies access to any benefit under any public distribution system, or obstructs the use of common property resources, or prevents entry to public places like temples, wells, or cremation grounds.

(zc) Obstructs or prevents a member of an SC/ST from carrying on any occupation, trade, or business, or denies access to employment opportunities.

Offences under Section 3(2)

This section applies to persons not belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe who commit any of the following acts against members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes:

(i) Gives or fabricates false evidence intending to cause any member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe to be convicted of an offence which is capital by law.

(ii) Gives or fabricates false evidence intending to cause any member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe to be convicted of an offence not capital by law.

(iii) Commits mischief by fire or by any explosive substance intending to cause destruction of any building which is ordinarily used as a place of human dwelling or as a place of worship, or for the custody of property, belonging to or used by a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.

(iv) Commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) which is punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more, against a person or property, knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or that such property belongs to such member.

(v) Commits any offence under this Act for which no specific punishment is provided.

(va) Commits any offence specified in the Schedule appended to this Act against a person or property on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.

(vii) Where any offence specified in this sub-section is committed by a public servant, such public servant shall be deemed to have committed the offence in the discharge of his official duties.

Legal provision(s) relating to 'Caste Atrocities'

Constitution of India

Article 17 of the Indian Constitution explicitly abolishes untouchability and forbids its practice in any form. It declares that the enforcement of any disability arising from untouchability is an offence punishable by law. The article forms the constitutional basis for legislation such as the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, ensuring that caste-based discrimination is not merely prohibited in principle but can be penalised through legal measures. It reflects the commitment of the Constitution to uphold human dignity, equality, and social justice.

Article 46 is part of the Directive Principles of State Policy and directs the State to promote the educational and economic interests of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and other weaker sections of society. It emphasises the reduction of social and economic inequalities and encourages the State to protect these communities from exploitation and injustice. While not enforceable in a court of law, Article 46 guides policy-making and the creation of welfare programmes aimed at the upliftment and integration of marginalised groups into mainstream society.

Together, Articles 17 and 46 illustrate the constitutional vision of eliminating caste-based discrimination and promoting social justice and equality for historically disadvantaged communities.

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

The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is structured into several chapters and sections that together provide a comprehensive legal framework to address caste-based violence and discrimination. The opening chapter sets out the preliminary provisions, including the short title, extent, and key definitions. These definitions are significant, as they identify what constitutes an “atrocity” under the law and clarify the scope of protection afforded to members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

Important provisions

Section 3(1)(r) and section 3(1)(s)

Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, makes it an offence to intentionally insult or intimidate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe with the intent to humiliate them in any place within public view. The provision covers verbal abuse, gestures, or acts that degrade a person because of their caste identity. Its purpose is to safeguard the dignity and social standing of members of these communities by penalising behaviour that reinforces caste-based humiliation or discrimination.

Section 3(1)(s) complements this by criminalising the abuse of a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view. This specifically targets the use of caste slurs or derogatory language meant to insult or demean.

The 2015 Amendment to the Act expanded and clarified both provisions. It replaced the earlier phrase “on the ground of untouchability” with a broader protection against any form of caste-based insult or intimidation, making the law more inclusive and responsive to present realities. The amendment also added the phrase “in any place within public view” to ensure that such offences are recognised when committed in a setting where others can witness the humiliation, thereby strengthening the legal framework against public acts of caste-based abuse.

Case laws

Swaran Singh v. State (2008)

In Swaran Singh v. State, the Supreme Court clarified the meaning of “in any place within public view” under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. The Court held that the gate of a house constitutes a place within public view, as people outside could see or hear what took place there. However, if the alleged offence occurs inside a building without any member of the public present, it would not fall within this definition. The Court drew a distinction between a “public place” and a “place within public view”, observing that while the former refers to property owned or managed by the State, the latter may include private property visible to members of the public. The Court ultimately found that no prima facie offence was made out against Swaran Singh, since there was nothing to show that his remarks had been made in public view.

Karuppudayar v. State (2025)

In Karuppudayar v. State, the Court reaffirmed that for a location to be considered a place “within public view”, members of the public must be capable of witnessing or hearing the alleged insult. It held that when an act occurs within the confines of a private space, such as inside a house where no members of the public are present, it cannot be said to have taken place within public view. The Court thus clarified that the mere presence of the victim and the accused in a private setting is insufficient to meet the statutory requirement unless the act is observable by the public.

Asmathunnisa v. State of A.P. (2011)

In Asmathunnisa v. State of A.P., the Supreme Court approved the reasoning of the Kerala High Court in E. Krishnan Nayanar v. Dr. M.A. Kuttappan, holding that the expression “within public view” requires that the insult be made in the presence of the victim and in a manner that can be perceived by the public. The Court explained that the phrase concerns the visibility of the act to members of the public rather than whether the location is a public place. It noted that the use of “within public view” in clause (x), and its omission in clause (ii) of Section 3(1), indicates that verbal insults require both public visibility and the presence of the victim, whereas physical acts such as dumping waste in someone’s premises may amount to an offence even in the victim’s absence.

Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019)

In Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court considered whether caste-based insults sent privately through WhatsApp messages could constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act. It held that as the messages were exchanged in private and were not accessible to any member of the public, the alleged acts did not occur “within public view”. The Court therefore concluded that no offence was made out under Section 3(1)(x), and that private communications, even if containing casteist remarks, do not satisfy the public element required under the provision.

Priti Agarwalla v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024)

In Priti Agarwalla v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Supreme Court applied the reasoning set out in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar to a case involving caste-related remarks in a private WhatsApp group. The Court observed that conversations in a restricted online group cannot be regarded as acts committed “in any place within public view”, since they are not accessible to the general public. It reaffirmed that communication confined to private or closed groups does not fulfil the public visibility requirement necessary to establish an offence under the SC/ST Act.

Victimisation under the act

The 2015 Amendment to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act replaced the phrase “on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe” in clause (v) of Section 3(2) with “knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe”. This alteration marked a significant shift from requiring proof that the offence was committed because of the victim’s caste identity to a standard based on the offender’s knowledge of that identity. The commentary by Rural India Online observes that the amendment was intended to remove ambiguity and emphasise deliberate or wilful harm, making it sufficient to establish that the accused knew the victim’s caste status rather than proving that caste-based motive was the reason for the act.

Case Laws

Pre-Amendment

Dinesh v. State of Rajasthan (2006)

In Dinesh v. State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court held that for Section 3(2)(v) of the Act to apply, the prosecution was required to prove that the offence had been committed on the ground that the victim was a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. The Court described this requirement as a sine qua non for the provision’s application. Since there was no evidence to show that the rape had been committed because of the victim’s caste, the enhanced punishment under Section 3(2)(v) was considered inapplicable. This judgment reflected the narrow interpretation that existed before the amendment, where the prosecution had to demonstrate a clear connection between the offence and caste-based motive.

Amir v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2004)

In Amir v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the High Court held that a mere reference to a victim’s caste during the commission of an offence was insufficient to attract Section 3(2)(v). The Court stated that the prosecution must present positive evidence that the act was carried out specifically because the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. Even though the accused had used a caste slur while fleeing after the assault, the Court ruled that there was no proof the assault had been motivated by caste. This decision reinforced the judicial position prior to 2016 that intent or motive linked to caste was an essential element of the offence.

Post-Amendment

Asharfi v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018)

In Asharfi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court clarified the effect of the 2015 Amendment, which substituted the phrase “on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe” with “knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe”. The Court held that after this amendment, the prosecution no longer needed to prove that the act was motivated by caste. It was sufficient that the accused had knowledge of the victim’s caste status at the time of committing an offence under the Indian Penal Code punishable with ten years’ imprisonment or more. The Court recognised that the amendment lowered the mental threshold under Section 3(2)(v), shifting the focus from intention to knowledge.

Patan Jamal Vali v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2021)

In Patan Jamal Vali v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court elaborated on the interpretative shift brought about by the 2015 Amendment. The Court observed that the earlier requirement of proving that the offence was committed “on the ground that” the victim belonged to an SC or ST represented a single-axis view of oppression, which did not fully account for the complexity of discrimination. Following the amendment, it became sufficient to show that the offender had knowledge of the victim’s caste identity. The Court noted that this reform reduced the burden of proof on victims, as it removed the need to establish motive or animus. It also pointed to the amendment of Section 8, which now presumes that an accused acquainted with the victim or their family is aware of the victim’s caste, reinforcing the intention of Parliament to strengthen the Act’s effectiveness.

Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala (2024)

In Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala, the Supreme Court examined whether the “mere knowledge” standard applied to Section 3(1)(r), which criminalises intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate within public view. The Court rejected this interpretation and held that where Parliament intended “mere knowledge” to suffice, it had explicitly stated so, as seen in Section 3(2)(v). The Court maintained that Section 3(1)(r) continued to require proof of intentional conduct with intent to humiliate, thereby preserving a higher evidentiary threshold. The decision drew a clear distinction between provisions based on knowledge and those that hinge on intent, confirming that the 2016 amendment’s relaxation of the mental element applies only to specific clauses such as Section 3(2)(v).

Externment Orders

Section 10A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, provides for the issue of externment orders as a preventive measure. It empowers the District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate to direct a person accused of an offence under the Act, or likely to commit one, to remove themselves from a specified area for a fixed period. Such an order may be made if the magistrate is satisfied that the person’s presence could cause danger, alarm, or further offences against members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes.

The provision aims to protect victims and witnesses from harassment or intimidation and to preserve public order in areas where tensions may arise. By temporarily excluding potentially threatening individuals, Section 10A ensures a safer environment for the investigation and trial of cases under the Act.

Rights of victims

Section 15A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, specifically recognises the rights of victims and witnesses. Introduced by the 2016 Amendment, it ensures that victims, their dependents, and witnesses are treated with dignity and fairness throughout the criminal process. The section grants them the right to be heard at all stages, including bail and trial proceedings, and to receive information about the progress of the case. It also guarantees protection from intimidation or harm and provides for necessary relief and rehabilitation measures. This provision marks a significant step in making the justice process more inclusive and sensitive to the needs of those affected by caste-based atrocities.

Section 21 places responsibility on the State Government to ensure the effective implementation of the Act. It requires the establishment of vigilance and monitoring committees at the state and district levels to review the progress of investigations, prosecutions, and relief measures. The section also calls for the appointment of nodal officers and the submission of regular reports on enforcement. Through these institutional mechanisms, Section 21 aims to secure consistent oversight and accountability in safeguarding the rights of victims and in preventing atrocities.

Section 23 empowers the Central Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. Exercising this power, the government framed the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, which detail procedures for investigation, relief, compensation, and protection of victims and witnesses. This provision allows for flexibility and clarity in implementing the Act, ensuring that its objectives are realised through well-defined administrative and procedural measures.

Anticipatory bail

Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, expressly bars the grant of anticipatory bail to anyone accused of offences under the Act. It excludes the application of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ensuring that an accused person cannot avoid arrest or interfere with the investigation. The provision reflects the legislature’s intention to provide stronger protection to victims of caste-based atrocities and to secure a fair process.

Section 18A, added by the 2018 Amendment, reaffirms the prohibition on anticipatory bail and clarifies procedural aspects of investigation. It states that no preliminary inquiry is needed before registering a complaint and no prior approval is required for arrest. The section was introduced to ensure that cases under the Act are dealt with promptly and that procedural delays do not hinder access to justice for members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

Case laws

The Supreme Court’s approach consistently balances two principles. On one hand, the bar under Section 18 is necessary to protect victims of atrocities from intimidation and ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice. On the other hand, courts have clarified that the bar cannot operate against innocent persons, false allegations, or cases motivated by extraneous factors. Mahajan and Skaria together establish that anticipatory bail may be considered only where there is no prima facie case or in the context of judicially recognised abuse of the Act, while Balothia laid the foundation for recognising the need to protect genuine victims. Procedural safeguards and preliminary scrutiny have also been endorsed to prevent misuse of the law.

Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra (2018)

In Mahajan, the Supreme Court addressed the tension between the absolute bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act and the need to protect innocent persons from malicious prosecution. The Court recognised that while the Act seeks to protect marginalised communities by preventing perpetrators from intimidating victims, the exclusion of anticipatory bail cannot apply where no prima facie case exists or the allegations are patently false or motivated by extraneous reasons, such as political rivalry or property disputes. The Court emphasised that proceedings that constitute an abuse of the law should be quashed, and anticipatory bail may be granted in such circumstances. It clarified that Section 18 should operate only in cases where the complaint discloses a bona fide offence under the Act. The judgment also introduced procedural safeguards, including requiring prior approval for the arrest of public servants and preliminary scrutiny by the Deputy Superintendent of Police to ensure that allegations are not frivolous or motivated. The Court thus balanced the protection of victims with the constitutional right to liberty, reaffirming that the bar on anticipatory bail is not absolute and cannot be used to victimise innocent individuals.

State of M.P. v. Ram Krishna Balothia (1995)

In Balothia, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, which bars anticipatory bail. The Court reasoned that this exclusion must be understood in the context of prevailing social conditions, where atrocities against Scheduled Castes and Tribes are frequent and offenders may intimidate or obstruct victims if allowed pre-arrest bail. The Court affirmed that the legislative intent was to ensure that perpetrators could be brought to justice without interference or delay caused by anticipatory bail. The judgment, however, focused on the necessity of the bar for genuine cases, and did not directly address situations of false or motivated allegations, which later jurisprudence clarified.

Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala (2024)

In Shajan Skaria, the Supreme Court elaborated on the narrow circumstances under which anticipatory bail may be considered, post-Mahajan. The Court confirmed that once the FIR or complaint discloses all the ingredients of a prima facie offence under the Act, Section 18 bars anticipatory bail. However, if the accused contends that the allegations are motivated by political rivalry or private vendetta, such claims cannot be entertained under Section 438 CrPC but may be addressed through the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC or its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court thus maintained that anticipatory bail under Section 438 is unavailable where a prima facie case exists, reinforcing the principle that the bar is designed to protect genuine victims while extraordinary writ powers remain a remedy against malicious prosecution.

Special Court

Further, Chapter IV introduces important procedural safeguards and institutional mechanisms. It provides for the establishment of Special Courts and the appointment of Special Public Prosecutors to ensure that cases under the Act are handled with urgency and expertise. Provisions for victim and witness protection, relief, and rehabilitation are also contained here, reflecting a victim-centred approach.

The later chapters deal with the role of the government in implementation, including monitoring and preventive measures. They require both central and state authorities to take steps to reduce the occurrence of atrocities and to oversee the effective application of the Act. Through its chapters and sections, the SC/ST (POA) Act sets out a layered system that defines offences, prescribes punishments, ensures speedy justice, and provides support for victims, thereby working as both a corrective and preventive legal measure.

The SC/ST (POA) Act has been amended in recent years to strengthen its provisions and address shortcomings in implementation. The 2015 amendment brought significant changes by expanding the scope of Section 3 to cover a broader range of atrocities, such as preventing access to public resources, forcing individuals to perform degrading acts, and imposing social or economic boycotts. It also required the establishment of Exclusive Special Courts and Special Public Prosecutors to ensure speedier trials, and provided for the rights of victims and witnesses, including measures for their protection. In 2018, following judicial decisions that were perceived to dilute the Act, Parliament introduced a further amendment which inserted Section 18-A. This clarified that neither a preliminary inquiry nor prior approval of authorities is required for the registration of an FIR, and reaffirmed that anticipatory bail cannot be granted to those accused under the Act. Together, these amendments sought to restore the protective framework of the legislation and reinforce its role as a safeguard against caste-based violence and discrimination.

Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955

The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 was enacted to give effect to the constitutional mandate of abolishing “untouchability” as provided under Article 17 of the Indian Constitution. The Act makes the practice of untouchability in any form an offence and prescribes penalties for those who encourage or enforce such practices. It covers a wide range of activities that amount to social exclusion, such as denying access to public places, refusing to sell goods or provide services, and preventing the use of amenities like wells, roads, or educational institutions on the grounds of caste.

The law provides for both imprisonment and fines as punishment, and in certain cases, enhanced penalties are imposed on repeat offenders. It also empowers state governments to appoint officers for the enforcement of its provisions and to set up special courts for speedy trial of offences.

The Act is significant as it marked the first comprehensive attempt to translate constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination into enforceable law. While subsequent legislations, such as the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 strengthened protections further, the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 remains a foundational statute in India’s legal framework to combat caste-based discrimination.

Court's view on the social aspect of caste atrocities

State of M.P. v. Ram Krishna Balothia (1995)

In State of M.P. v. Ram Krishna Balothia, the Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of excluding the application of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Court upheld this exclusion, observing that it must be understood in light of prevailing social realities. It recognised that perpetrators of caste-based atrocities often use intimidation and coercion to silence victims and obstruct justice. The Court noted that such victims, already socially and economically disadvantaged, are highly vulnerable to threats if offenders are granted anticipatory bail. Hence, the restriction was viewed as a necessary legislative measure to protect victims of caste-based oppression and to ensure effective prosecution of offences under the Act.

State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu Ingale (1995)

In State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu Ingale, the Supreme Court addressed both the social realities underlying caste-based oppression and the judicial approach required in dealing with such offences. The Court observed that centuries of poverty and dependence had rendered Dalits vulnerable to exploitation and violence by dominant social groups. Any attempt by Dalits to assert equality or claim their rights often provokes hostility, and their lack of resources leaves them exposed to economic and social boycotts. The Court held that the State has a constitutional duty to protect Dalits and ensure social justice, as their poverty, lack of influence, and continued subjugation prevent them from fully exercising their legal and constitutional rights. It further criticised the lower courts for taking an overly technical approach to evidence in a case involving the denial of Dalits’ right to draw water from a public borewell. The Court emphasised that social welfare legislation such as the SC/ST Act is aimed at protecting vulnerable groups, and that mens rea is not an essential element in such offences. It urged the judiciary to adopt a socially sensitive and realistic interpretation of evidence, recognising the broader context of caste discrimination and the continuing struggle of Dalits for dignity and equality.

Caste Atrocity as defined in official database

Report u/s 21(4) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

The Report under Section 21(4) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is an annual document prepared by the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment. It provides Parliament with an account of how the provisions of the Act are being implemented across the country. The report draws upon information submitted by state and union territory governments, covering aspects such as the registration and disposal of cases, the establishment and functioning of special courts, and the operation of vigilance and monitoring committees. It also reviews financial performance, including the disbursement and utilisation of funds under the central assistance scheme that supports the Act’s implementation.

In addition to presenting data, the report serves an evaluative purpose by identifying patterns, challenges, and shortcomings in enforcement. It highlights issues such as investigative delays, low conviction rates, inadequate coordination among agencies, and gaps in rehabilitation measures for victims. The document also outlines steps taken by central and state authorities to improve compliance, build institutional capacity, and promote awareness. Overall, the report functions as both an accountability measure and a policy review mechanism, offering a comprehensive picture of the efforts undertaken to prevent and address atrocities against members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

Crime in India report 2023

The Crime in India 2023 report, published by the National Crime Records Bureau, provides a comprehensive overview of crime statistics across the country. It documents offences under various categories, including crimes against women, property offences, economic offences, and communal and caste-related violence, offering a detailed account of both national and state-level trends.

A key feature of the 2023 report is its focus on crimes against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The data show that over 57,000 cases of crimes against Scheduled Castes were registered, marking a slight increase from 2022, while incidents against Scheduled Tribes rose sharply by nearly 29 per cent, with around 12,960 cases reported. The most common offences included cases of assault, criminal intimidation, and atrocities motivated by caste. States such as Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Madhya Pradesh recorded the highest number of cases against Scheduled Castes.

The tables provided below (7A.1, 7A.2, 7C.1 and 7C.2), from the Crime in India 2023 report, provide a statistical overview of crimes and atrocities committed against members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Table 7A.1 records 57,789 cases against Scheduled Castes, with Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh reporting the highest numbers. Table 7A.2 breaks these cases down by category, showing that most fall under general IPC offences and provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. For Scheduled Tribes, Tables 7C.1 and 7C.2 note 12,960 cases, with Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Rajasthan accounting for a major share. Overall, the data suggests a continuing prevalence of caste and tribe-based crimes, with certain states contributing disproportionately to the total figures.

The table provides comparative state-wise data from 2021 to 2023 on the number of crimes/atrocities against the members of scheduled castes.

This table provides state-wise data on acts, against members of scheduled castes, which have been criminalised under the Sc/St act.

This table provides state-wise data on acts, against members of scheduled castes, which have been criminalised under the Sc/St act.

This table provides state-wise data on acts against members of scheduled castes which have been criminalised under the Protection of Civil Rights act and total crime against members of the scheduled castes.

The table provides comparative state-wise data from 2021 to 2023 on the number of crimes/atrocities against the members of scheduled tribes.

This table provides state-wise data on acts, against members of scheduled tribes, which have been criminalised under the Sc/St act.

This table provides state-wise data on acts, against members of scheduled castes, which have been criminalised under the Sc/St act.

This table provides state-wise data on acts, against members of scheduled tribes, which have been criminalised under the Protection of Civil Rights act and total crime against members of the scheduled tribes.

Research that engages with 'caste atrocities'

Quest for Justice: Implementation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and Rules 1995 Status Report (2009- 2018)

This report “Quest for Justice: Implementation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and Rules 1995 – Status Report (2009–2018)” reviews the nature, scale and extent of violence against Dalits and Adivasis over a ten-year period and evaluates how effectively the PoA Act and its Rules have been put into practice. It outlines the difficulties victims of caste-based atrocities face when seeking justice, examining the performance of the police, judiciary and other implementing bodies, as well as the mechanisms intended to provide immediate relief and create a safer environment for affected communities. Drawing on desk research, case studies, responses obtained under the Right to Information Act, NCRB data, official reports, parliamentary records and media coverage, the report analyses gaps in access to justice and identifies shortcomings in the enforcement of the Act. Its purpose is to improve understanding of the legal protections available, strengthen interventions by civil society and relevant institutions, and present practical recommendations to close the gaps in implementation so that justice, dignity and security are ensured for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

Hindi Training Material on the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

The training material covers the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and its related Rules from 1995. It begins by outlining the purpose of the Act, which is to prevent atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes and Tribes and provide for their relief and rehabilitation. It explains the main offences defined under the Act and the procedural requirements such as filing of FIRs and roles of various authorities.

Moreover, it provides detailed statewise lists of Scheduled Castes and Tribes, helping to contextualise the populations protected. The report includes compensation tables showing amounts payable for different types of offences and injuries under the Act, updated according to recent government notifications. It also presents data on FIR registrations and case statistics to indicate enforcement trends and challenges across regions.

Lastly, the report discusses implementation issues such as delays in justice delivery and gaps in relief for victims. It offers recommendations to improve the functioning of the Act, including better monitoring, awareness campaigns, and accountability measures for officials. The document serves as both a legal reference and practical guide for understanding the protection framework under the Act.

Study on performance of Special courts set up under the SC ST Prevention of Atrocity Act

This report titled "Study on Performance of Special Courts set up under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act" examines the functioning of the special court system established under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Despite constitutional protections and special laws such as the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989, crimes against these communities remain widespread, with thousands of reported cases each year and many more going unreported. The study, commissioned by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment and conducted by the Centre for the Study of Casteism, Communalism and Law at NLSIU, focuses on understanding why the Act’s aim of deterrence and prevention has not been fully realised. It specifically compares the functioning of Designated Special Courts and Exclusive Special Courts across six states, assessing the timeliness of case disposal, conviction and acquittal rates, and the extent to which these courts prioritise atrocity cases. Methodologically, data was collected from special courts in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, and Tamil Nadu, with questionnaires administered to judges, prosecutors, witnesses, court staff, police, victims, and the accused to capture a comprehensive perspective. The research highlights systemic issues such as administrative delays, financial constraints, inadequate infrastructure, and lack of sensitivity among police and judiciary, all of which undermine speedy justice. It also notes that even with the establishment of Exclusive Special Courts, delays persist, leading to weakened prosecutions, witness fatigue, and loss of faith in the justice system. By analysing both quantitative and qualitative data, the report seeks to identify the root causes of delay and make recommendations to improve the efficiency and credibility of these courts in delivering justice to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

Study on the implementation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Rules, 1995

This study, conducted by the Dalit Human Rights Defenders Network (DHRDNet), assesses how well the Act is being implemented, with a focus on monitoring mechanisms, the performance of special courts, and the functioning of the police. Covering 15 states and over 100 atrocity-prone districts, the study uses data obtained through the Right to Information Act from multiple departments and agencies, including the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. The findings reveal systemic shortcomings, including police delays, prosecution failures, low conviction rates, and gaps in rehabilitation and compensation. The report stresses the urgent need to strengthen accountability mechanisms, standardise identification of atrocity-prone areas, sensitise police personnel, ensure timely filing of chargesheets, fill vacancies for special prosecutors, and expedite compensation and rehabilitation for victims. It concludes that while the Act remains one of the strongest tools to curb caste-based discrimination, its promise can only be realised through robust and unbiased implementation by state agencies and the judiciary.

Evaluation Study on Functioning of SC/ST Protection Cells as per the Responsibilities Specified under Rule 8 of the PoA Rules

The evaluation study on the functioning of SC/ST Protection Cells as per the Responsibilities Specified under Rule 8 of the PoA Rules, examines how these cells are performing their mandated roles across selected states. The study, based on primary and secondary data from Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, and Karnataka, assesses crime trends, cell operations, and community perceptions. It finds that while there has been a slight overall reduction in certain crimes such as murder and grievous hurt, offences like rape, sexual harassment, and cases under the PoA Act have risen in several states. The cells in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka are noted for their strong performance in surveys, law-and-order maintenance, and victim support, whereas Bihar, Rajasthan, and Madhya Pradesh show mixed to weak implementation in several areas. The report highlights a low average conviction rate of 8.5%, pointing to systemic challenges including insufficient infrastructure, delays in victim compensation, and inadequate special courts. Recommendations include strengthening the cells with more resources, improving direct benefit transfers, reducing payment delays, establishing more special courts, holding regular awareness camps, and creating district-level committees to check false caste certificates. The study concludes that the scheme has had a positive but limited impact, and stresses the need for its continuation and expansion for better protection of SC/ST communities.

Hate Crimes in India: An Economic Analysis of Violence and Atrocities against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

This report presents one of the first systematic studies linking economic disparities to caste-based violence in India. Using district-level crime data from 2001 to 2010 alongside National Sample Survey data on consumption and employment, it investigates whether changes in the relative material well-being of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST) compared with upper castes influence the incidence of hate crimes. The study finds that a widening economic gap between SC/ST groups and upper castes correlates with a decrease in such crimes, suggesting that acts of violence are often triggered by a perceived threat to the status quo when lower castes improve their economic position. The analysis shows that violent crimes, particularly those targeting property, are most sensitive to shifts in relative standards of living. Beyond the economic findings, the report highlights systemic failures in justice delivery, including delays in trials, poor implementation of victim relief measures, and police reluctance to register complaints. These institutional shortcomings perpetuate fear among marginalised groups and reinforce caste hierarchies, underscoring that the issue is not merely one of law and order but a broader question of social justice. The authors recommend further localised research, particularly at the village or household level, to better understand the dynamics of caste-based violence and its deep roots in Indian society.

Tackling caste discrimination through law: A policy brief on implementation of caste discrimination laws in India (2020)

This policy brief critically examines the implementation of three key legal frameworks designed to address caste-based discrimination in India: the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (PCRA), the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (PoA Act), and the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 (PEMSRA). The report analyses the persistence of caste discrimination in India through practices of exclusion, segregation, and violence, despite constitutional guarantees under Articles 15, 16, and 17. It reviews the incidence of crimes against Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), the functioning of special courts, the performance of investigating authorities, and the implementation of rehabilitative measures, focusing on Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu. Findings reveal significant challenges such as underreporting of offences, high case pendency, low conviction rates, and inadequate enforcement of protective and rehabilitative obligations, with many State authorities failing to identify atrocity-prone areas or manual scavengers. The brief calls for legal reforms, including a clear definition of untouchability, civil remedies for caste-based exclusion, expansion of the PoA Act to include SC/ST persons from all religions, creation of Standard Operating Procedures for police, and training of prosecutors and judges. It also highlights the urgent need for comprehensive surveys, effective rehabilitation, concessional loans, and measures to protect the children of manual scavengers, while recommending stronger enforcement against apartment associations violating manual scavenging laws. Overall, the report stresses that government inaction perpetuates systemic discrimination and that robust legal and institutional measures are essential to achieve equality and dignity for SCs and STs.

'Final Reports' under Sec-498A and the SC/ST Atrocities Act - Economic & Political Weekly

This report critically examines the underexplored issue of Final Reports (FRs) filed by the police to close cases under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Based on an analysis of 100 FRs under each law, the study highlights how police attitudes shape the very first level of justice delivery, often determining whether cases proceed to court at all. It finds that while most FRs under Section 498A are categorised as “mistake of fact”, FRs under the SC/ST Act are disproportionately labelled “false”, a categorisation that carries legal consequences under Sections 182 and 211 of the IPC, though these are rarely invoked. The report argues that this practice reflects a caste-based bias and a differential evidentiary standard, where delays in reporting are seen as undermining credibility for SC/ST complainants but not for women under Section 498A, and where community members are dismissed as “interested” witnesses in atrocity cases. It also explores the role of reconciliation (rajinama), noting that while such settlements are treated leniently under Section 498A, they are often used to delegitimise SC/ST complaints. The findings reveal how police investigations can act as a first line of injustice, keeping a significant number of cases out of court and denying victims access to legal remedy. The report concludes that the popular narrative of misuse of these laws oversimplifies the issue and ignores how members of dominant groups sometimes manipulate women and SC/ST persons as proxies to settle personal scores, underscoring the need to scrutinise FRs more closely to ensure justice.

Contributors & review status

Curated / edited bynot yet recorded

Peer reviewpending

Project reviewpending

Expert reviewpending

Page created 2026-08-21  ·  Last updated 2026-08-23