Caste discrimination in India continues to marginalize certain communities, despite constitutional protections and legal reforms aimed at ensuring their equality and rights.
NEW DELHI: Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) are officially recognized groups in India that have historically faced social and economic disadvantages. According to the United Nations, in the absence of a formal definition, a minority group can be identified using both objective and subjective criteria. These criteria have been outlined by various UN experts based on international standards.
Objective criteria consider shared characteristics such as ethnicity, national origin, culture, language, or religion. These categories align with global minority rights standards, including the UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities (UNDM) and Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which protect the rights of ethnic, religious, and linguistic minorities.
Additionally, while the term race is sometimes included alongside ethnicity in anti-discrimination laws, this does not imply the existence of distinct races but acknowledges the need to combat racism and racial discrimination.
Scheduled Castes (SCs)
Scheduled Castes refer to those castes positioned at a lower level in the traditional religious hierarchy. Historically, these communities have faced discrimination, including untouchability and social persecution.
The term Scheduled Castes was officially incorporated in the Government of India Act, 1935, and later recognized under Article 341 of the Indian Constitution. The Government of India formally categorized certain castes as Scheduled Castes through the Scheduled Castes Order of August 1950.
A person is considered a member of a Scheduled Caste if they belong to a caste that has been declared as such for their specific state or union territory of residence. The purpose of this classification is to protect the interests of communities subjected to caste-based discrimination and provide them with special provisions to facilitate their social, economic, and educational development.
Definition Under the Constitution
- Schedule refers to a schedule attached to the Indian Constitution.
- Scheduled Castes include castes, races, or tribes (or subgroups within them) that are recognized as Scheduled Castes under Article 341 of the Constitution.
Scheduled Tribes (STs)
Scheduled Tribes refer to tribal communities, many of whom traditionally reside in forests or lead a nomadic lifestyle. These groups often exist outside organized religions and maintain distinct social customs, including unique traditions, attire, dietary habits, and cultural practices.
Several tribal communities face challenges such as geographical isolation, social and economic backwardness, limited access to education, and a reluctance to interact with mainstream society. These issues can be understood in the context of their historical circumstances and traditional ways of life.
Constitutional Recognition
- Article 342(1): The President of India, after consulting the Governor of a state, may officially designate certain tribes or tribal communities as Scheduled Tribes through a public notification for that state or union territory.
- Article 342(2): Parliament has the authority to amend the list of Scheduled Tribes by adding or removing tribes, tribal communities, or subgroups. However, apart from such parliamentary amendments, the original notification under Article 342(1) cannot be altered by any subsequent notification.
Constitutional Rights for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs)
The Indian Constitution provides special protections and privileges to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to address historical marginalization and discrimination. These rights include access to education, employment opportunities, and other socio-economic benefits.
- Right to Equality:
- The Constitution guarantees equality for all individuals, regardless of class, color, creed, gender, or religion.
- Article 14 & 15: Ensure equality before the law while allowing the government to make special provisions for disadvantaged groups, including SCs and STs.
- Abolition of Untouchability:
- Article 17: Abolishes untouchability in all forms, which extends beyond physical contact to include broader social sanctions and discrimination.
- Promotion of Educational and Economic Interests:
- Article 46: Directs the state to promote the educational and economic well-being of SCs, STs, and other weaker sections while protecting them from social injustice and exploitation.
- National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC):
- Article 338: Establishes the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) with the following functions:
- Investigate and monitor matters related to constitutional and legal safeguards for SCs.
- Evaluate the implementation of these safeguards.
- Address complaints regarding violations of SC rights and protections.
- Article 338: Establishes the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) with the following functions:
- National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST):
- Article 338-A: Establishes the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST), functioning similarly to the NCSC to safeguard the rights of STs.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR ADDRESSING CASTE DISCRIMINATION
During the 19th and 20th centuries, legal reforms played a crucial role in driving social transformation. Criminal law was used as a deterrent to curb deviant practices and shape societal attitudes. The Constitution of India, under Article 17, abolished untouchability and declared its practice unlawful.
To reinforce this constitutional mandate, Parliament enacted the Untouchability (Offences) Act in 1955, imposing penalties for practicing untouchability. This law was later amended and renamed the Protection of Civil Rights Act in 1976, broadening its scope to penalize untouchability arising from religious and social disabilities.
The preamble of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1976, states its objective as:
“To prevent the commission of offences of atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes and Tribes, to provide for Special Courts for the trial of such offences, and to ensure relief and rehabilitation for victims of such crimes, along with matters related or incidental thereto.”
The Protection of Civil Rights Act fell short of achieving its objectives due to legal loopholes and the relatively lenient punishments compared to those prescribed under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Additionally, law enforcement agencies lacked both professional training and social commitment to effectively implement this legislation.
As a result, there was a pressing need for a more stringent and comprehensive law to safeguard Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) from violence inflicted by other communities.
Notable Cases Where Justice Was Denied
- Kizhavenmani, Tamil Nadu (1958) – Forty-four SC agricultural laborers were burned alive in a locked building for demanding higher wages. The High Court of Tamil Nadu acquitted all the accused.
- Karamchedu, Andhra Pradesh (1984) – Five SC individuals were massacred. While the trial court convicted several accused, the High Court later acquitted them all. The Supreme Court eventually reinstated the trial court’s verdict, demonstrating that acquittals do not always imply false allegations.
These incidents, among others, underscored the inadequacy of existing laws and led to the enactment of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST PoA Act). This special legislation specifically addresses offenses committed against SC/ST individuals, categorized as “atrocities.” The Act extends across India and aims to criminalize caste- and tribe-based discrimination while ensuring legal aid for victims.
Objective of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989
The Act seeks to prevent atrocities against SC/ST members, establish Special and Exclusive Special Courts for the trial of such offenses, and provide relief and rehabilitation for victims. It also addresses related and incidental matters to strengthen legal protections for marginalized communities.
The provisions of the SC/ST Act and its associated rules can be categorized into three key areas:
- Criminal Law Provisions – The Act defines specific atrocities and expands penal provisions under the IPC to impose criminal liability.
- Relief and Compensation – It provides mechanisms for financial assistance and support to victims of caste-based violence.
- Implementation and Monitoring – The Act establishes special authorities to oversee enforcement and ensure compliance.
While the SC/ST (PoA) Act was not without flaws, it served as a crucial safeguard for marginalized communities against blatant exploitation. However, Dalits and Tribals continue to face discrimination. At the same time, concerns have been raised about the misuse of the Act, with claims that it is sometimes employed as a tool for “blackmail” or “vengeance” to serve vested interests. Even the Supreme Court of India has acknowledged instances where the law has been misused.
That said, a significant failure lies in the inability of law enforcement agencies to uphold the rule of law effectively. Reports often highlight instances where officials side with the accused, influenced by factors such as muscle power, financial influence, or ingrained biases against SC/ST communities. Since Dalits live in close proximity to other castes, atrocities against them are more frequent and visible, whereas tribal communities—though concentrated in specific regions—face systemic discrimination.
The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015
To strengthen the fight against atrocities, the government amended the SC/ST (PoA) Act in 2015, introducing several key changes:
Expanded Offenses
- The amendment redefined existing offenses and introduced new categories of crimes.
- Specific acts amounting to sexual exploitation of SC/ST women were included, such as:
- Using words, gestures, or actions of a sexual nature.
- Unwanted sexual touching without consent.
- Forcing an SC/ST woman to become a Devadasi in a temple.
Newly Defined Offenses
The amendment criminalized additional forms of discrimination and violence, including:
- Garlanding a person with footwear.
- Forcing individuals to dispose of human or animal carcasses or perform manual scavenging.
- Publicly abusing an SC/ST individual using caste-based slurs.
- Promoting hostility or ill-will against SC/ST communities.
- Threatening or imposing social or economic boycotts.
Additionally, denying SC/ST individuals access to essential resources and institutions, such as:
- Common property resources (e.g., wells, ponds, community lands).
- Places of worship open to the public.
- Educational or healthcare institutions.
Presumption of Offenses
If the accused was familiar with the victim or their family, the court will presume that they were aware of the victim’s caste or tribal identity, unless proven otherwise.
Strengthened Legal Provisions
- The amendment mandated the establishment of Exclusive Special Courts and Special Public Prosecutors at the district level to ensure faster trials.
- Cases must be disposed of within two months.
- A new chapter was introduced to protect victims and witnesses, ensuring the State takes responsibility for their safety and well-being.
Accountability of Public Servants
- Non-SC/ST public officials who fail to perform their duties concerning SC/ST individuals can face six months to one year of imprisonment.
- Responsibilities include:
- Registering complaints or FIRs promptly.
- Reading out orally reported information before obtaining the informant’s signature.
- Providing a copy of the complaint to the informant.
The 2015 amendment significantly enhanced the legal framework for protecting SC/ST communities, ensuring stricter punishments, faster trials, and greater accountability of public authorities.
JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS TO COMBAT CASTE DISCRIMINATION
1. Sukanya Shantha V. Union of India & Ors. 2024 INSC 753
On October 3, 2024, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, directed both the Union and state governments to revise prison manuals and rules to eliminate caste-based discrimination in prisons, citing violations of Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 of the Constitution.
The Court noted:
“Discriminatory practices such as caste-based labor segregation, barrack segregation, and the labeling of Denotified Tribes (DNTs) as ‘habitual offenders.'”
It declared that:
Prison manuals that stereotyped oppressed castes and assigned them ‘menial’ tasks violated constitutional protections against discrimination, untouchability, and forced labor.
Additionally, the Court ordered the removal of caste columns from prison registers, despite concerns that this might hinder data collection on caste representation in prisons.
The Court mandated the revision of prison manuals by the Union and states within three months and instructed that references to ‘habitual offenders’ be aligned with state laws.
It also took suo motu cognizance of caste, gender, and disability-based discrimination in prisons, directing all states and the Union to submit compliance reports.
The District Legal Services Authority and Board of Visitors were instructed to inspect prisons for caste discrimination and report their findings to the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA).
The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to its previous rulings in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) and Amanatullah Khan v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi (2024) to prevent arbitrary arrests of DNT groups.
READ JUDGEMENT HERE:
2. Patan Jamal Vali v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2021)
In Patan Jamal Vali v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2021), a man from a dominant caste was accused of sexually assaulting a blind woman from a Scheduled Caste. The Court applied principles of intersectionality in determining the sentence, considering the specific socio-cultural factors of both the victim and the accused. The Court convicted the accused under the provisions for rape in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
READ JUDGMENT HERE:
3.Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 6 SCC 454.
In the case of Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court’s decision overlooked the socio-cultural realities surrounding caste-based atrocities and relied heavily on High Court judgments that lacked statistical evidence. The ruling linked high acquittal rates to the prevalence of false cases, raising concerns that diluting the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act would compromise social justice. To address these concerns, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Bill, 2018, was enacted, ensuring that no preliminary inquiry was required for filing FIRs and that prior approval for arrests was not needed. The amendment also prohibited anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in cases under the Act.
READ JUDGEMENT HERE
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Caste Discrimination
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE