The deep root for such atrocities is traceable to the caste system, which "encompasses a complete ordering of social groups on the basis of the so-called ritual purity.
"[2] Considered ritually impure, Dalits have been physically and socially excluded from caste Hindu society, denied basic resources and services, and discriminated against in all areas of life.
Atrocities continued to increase in ferocity and frequency – for example, in Bihar the massacres of Dalits at Belchi in 1979 and at Pipra in 1980; in Uttar Pradesh the massacre following a Dalit bridegroom riding on horseback at Kafalta in 1980; in Madhya Pradesh the killing of Bacchdas in Mandsaur district in 1982; in Bihar the killing in police firing on 15 tribals at Banjhi in Sahebganj district in 1985.
So the parliament brought about many changes to UOA after 21 years on 19 November 1976 (the then prime minister's birthday), and renamed it the Protection of Civil Rights Act (PCRA), 1955.
However, PCRA suffered from severe infirmities, chief among them being that it did not even recognise many of the caste based crimes, was too lenient, and did not have an empowered mechanism to monitor the implementation of the Act (especially given that the police and judiciary were drawn from the same social milieu).
Under continued pressure from Dalit MPs and political leaders, the magnitude and gravity of the problem was finally recognised by Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.
The Act added Chapter IVA Section 15A (the rights of victims and witnesses), and defined dereliction of duty by officials and accountability mechanisms more precisely.
The key features of the Amendment Act of 2015 are The basic objective and purpose of this more comprehensive legislation was enunciated when the Bill was 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, etc., when they assert their rights and resist practices of untouchability against them or demand statutory minimum wages or refuse to do any bonded and forced labour, the vested interests try to cow them down and terrorise them.
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 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 Courts have to be mindful of the fact that the Act has been enacted keeping in view the express constitutional safeguards enumerated in Articles 15, 17 and 21 of the Constitution, with a twinfold objective of protecting the members of these vulnerable communities as well as to provide relief and rehabilitation to the victims of castebased atrocities.The provisions of the Act and Rules can be divided into three different categories, covering a variety of issues related to atrocities against the scheduled communities and their position in society.
In specific terms: Section 3 of the Act lists offences shattering the self-respect and esteem of the scheduled communities, denial of economic, democratic and social rights, discrimination, exploitation and abuse of the legal process, etc.
Rule 7(1) is to ensure that the investigations are of high quality, and the assumption is that senior officials would not be as biased, nor as vulnerable to other pressures, as those in the lower rungs of the police force.
For instance, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, in D. Ramlinga Reddy v. State of AP,[24] took the position that provisions of Rule 7 are mandatory and held that investigation under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has to be carried out by only an officer not below the rank of DSP.
In the case of Karnataka, there were no officers of the required rank in three districts, as admitted by the government at the State Vigilance and Monitoring Committee (SVMC) in September 2010.
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 Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment)[36] Of the total cases filed in 2002 only 21.72% were disposed of, and, of those, a mere 2.31% ended in conviction.
[41][29] The very first union report [42] on the implementation of the Act, placed before parliament on 14 December 1993 notes that at the conference of the welfare ministers of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Pondicherry held at Thiruvananthapuram on 28 and 29 August 1992 the first main recommendation was that all atrocity cases should be decided by the courts in six months to one year.
Even assuming the lower end of the scale of relief (which varies from ₹85,000 to ₹825,000) the monetary loss alone due to wholly avoidable judicial delays is in the range of ₹15 billion, USD 200 million.
Attendants for those hospitalised, or for survivors and witnesses or their dependents who are children, women, or senior citizens, are also entitled to travel allowance and maintenance expenses for the duration.
Common resources and services (such as wells and other water sources fouled, right of passage) are to be restored at government cost (Rule 12(4) Schedule annexure-I).
[52] Rule 13(2) Special police stations have been set up only in five states - Bihar 40, Chhattisgarh 26, Jharkhand 22, Keralam 3, and Madhya Pradesh 51 (total 142) (Annual Report under Section 21(4) for the calendar year 2019).
That committee has expressed that the most important areas of concern are the following five: For some, the low conviction rates are evidence of misuse of the Act by the SCs and STs to threaten and blackmail other communities.
[63] Vishnu Tiwari spent 20 years in prison after being falsely implicated in a case for rape, criminal intimidation and sexual exploitation of a woman from the Scheduled Castes, under the provisions of this act.
[67] However, the increasingly indifferent responses of those involved in the implementation of laws protecting the weak, the oppressed and the socially disadvantaged have persisted over the years and the system has failed to provide for self-correction.
[70] The issue of false cases and misuse of the Act found its way into the March 2018 decision of a two judge bench of Justices UU Lalit and AK Goel[71] of the Supreme Court of India in Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Further, it also ignored the fact 'that the charges in this regard against the public servant shall be booked on the recommendation of an administrative enquiry (Section 4(2)) - so the question of not conducting a preliminary inquiry does not arise.
Instead of taking the officials to task for not doing what is a legally mandated part of their job, the judges of the supreme court held that the cases were false and a misuse of the Act, in effect blaming the victim.
In addition to the Act, Rules, and other information regarding additional relief in English, Hindi, Tamil, (and earlier versions in various other languages), it has the following information: It also has the tools and resources required for monitoring implementation at the Some organisations used Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to demand better implementation of the Act at the High Courts and in the Supreme Court of India.
Just before the 20th anniversary of its enactment, CSOs came together from across the country to review its implementation and formed the National Coalition for Strengthening SC & ST Prevention of Atrocities Act.