SC/ST Act, Constitutional Values and Victim-Centric Criminal Justice

Mains papers increasingly ask candidates to read the SC/ST Act through the lens of constitutional theory: equality jurisprudence, transformative constitutionalism, constitutional morality, access to justice, and the shift towards a victim-centric criminal process. These are not abstract themes. Each has a concrete footing in the Act's provisions and in Supreme Court decisions. This note explains each concept in plain terms, links it to specific sections, and gives the cases to cite, ending with the victim-rights jurisprudence built around Section 15A.

1. The Act and Equality Jurisprudence

Indian equality law has moved through three broad understandings. The SC/ST Act makes sense only on the second and third.

Three models of equality and where the Act sits

Figure 1: Three models of equality and where the Act sits

Formal equality and classification. Article 14 permits reasonable classification. The Act's classification of offences by outsiders against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes passes the twin test (Ram Krishna Balothia, 1995).
Substantive equality. Equality means real equality of status and opportunity, which may require treating unequals differently (N.M. Thomas, 1976; Indra Sawhney, 1992). The Act gives a vulnerable group stronger legal protection for that reason.
Anti-subordination. The deepest understanding asks whether a practice keeps a group in a subordinate position. The Act's offences are defined by exactly that: the use of violence, humiliation, boycott and exploitation to enforce caste hierarchy.
No stereotyping of the protected group. In the 2019 review (Union of India v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2020), the Supreme Court withdrew guidelines that rested on the assumption that members of these communities misuse the law as a class. Equality also forbids presuming dishonesty on the basis of caste.
Intersectionality. Caste combines with gender, disability and poverty to create distinct forms of disadvantage, which courts must recognise (Patan Jamal Vali v. State of A.P., 2021).

2. The Act and Transformative Constitutionalism

Transformative constitutionalism is the idea that a constitution is not only a framework of government but a long-term project to transform an unequal society into one founded on equality, dignity and freedom. The term was popularised by Karl Klare in the South African context and adopted by the Supreme Court of India, notably in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018) and Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018).

The Indian starting point. Dr. Ambedkar warned that political democracy cannot last unless there lies at its base social democracy, a way of life that recognises liberty, equality and fraternity. The Constitution was meant to change society, not just to reflect it.
The Act as a transformative instrument. It reaches into private and customary relations that ordinary law left alone: who may draw water, walk a road, enter a village, cast a vote freely, own land, or refuse degrading labour.
From status to contract, from custom to rights. By making the enforcement of caste hierarchy a crime, the Act converts social expectations based on birth into violations of legal rights.

💡 Analogy: renovating a house while living in it

A transformative constitution is like renovating a house while the family still lives in it. The foundations (the Constitution) are new, but the old walls (caste customs) still stand in many rooms. The SC/ST Act is one of the tools that knocks down those walls room by room, without waiting for society to rebuild itself.

3. The Act and Constitutional Morality

Constitutional morality means adherence to the core values of the Constitution (equality, liberty, fraternity, dignity, the rule of law) even when they conflict with popular or customary morality. Dr. Ambedkar, after quoting the historian George Grote on the need to diffuse constitutional morality, told the Constituent Assembly on 4 November 1948 in his own words that constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment and has to be cultivated, and that democracy in India was only a top-dressing on an Indian soil which is essentially undemocratic.

Constitutional morality against caste morality

Figure 2: Constitutional morality against caste morality

The courts on constitutional morality. Manoj Narula v. Union of India (2014) explained it as a commitment to constitutional norms; Navtej Singh Johar (2018) held that constitutional morality, not social or majoritarian morality, is the test of the validity of laws.
Section 20 as its statutory voice. The Act prevails over any inconsistent law, custom, usage or instrument. Where caste custom and the Constitution conflict, the Act makes the Constitution win.
Institutional caste morality. In Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India (2024), the Court struck down prison manual rules that allotted work by caste: even State institutions had carried caste morality into their rules.

4. The Act and Access to Justice

Access to justice is a fundamental right. A Constitution Bench in Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan (2016) held that it flows from Articles 14 and 21 and has four facets: an effective adjudicatory mechanism, reasonably accessible in terms of distance, speedy, and affordable. Article 39A adds the State's duty to provide free legal aid, and Section 12(a) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 makes every member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe entitled to free legal services, irrespective of income.

Access to justice: the four facets and the Act's answer

Figure 3: Access to justice: the four facets and the Act's answer

⚠ The gap between law and practice

The Act's design meets every facet of access to justice, but outcomes depend on implementation: registration of FIRs, timely charge-sheets, enough Exclusive Special Courts, trained prosecutors and actual payment of relief. This is why the Supreme Court in National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights (2017) directed strict enforcement of the Act and Rules, and why annual reports under Section 21(4) are laid before Parliament.

5. The Act and Criminal Justice Reform

The SC/ST Act has served as a testing ground for reforms that the general criminal law adopted later, or has not yet adopted.

Accountability of police. Section 4 has punished wilful neglect of duties by public servants since 1989. The 2016 amendment listed the specific duties, such as reading out the oral information before taking the informant's signature, registering the complaint or FIR, and furnishing a copy to the informant, paralleling the general law's punishment of a public servant's failure to record information in certain cases (Section 166A IPC, 2013; now Section 199 BNS).
Time-bound investigation and trial. Investigation by a senior officer and a charge-sheet within sixty days (Rule 7); day-to-day trial with a two-month target (Section 14(3)); appeals within ninety days, decided within three months as far as possible (Section 14A).
Specialised courts and prosecutors. Exclusive Special Courts and Special Public Prosecutors (Sections 14 and 15).
Technology. Video recording of all proceedings under Section 15A(10), anticipating the BNSS emphasis on electronic records and audio-video recording.
Victim rights as law. Chapter IVA (2016) gave victims enforceable rights before the BNSS (2023) extended some of them to all victims.

6. The Act and Victim-Centric Criminal Procedure

Traditional criminal procedure treats a crime as an offence against the State. The prosecutor represents the State, and the victim is reduced to a witness. Victimology challenged this, and Indian law has gradually given victims a voice. The SC/ST Act's Chapter IVA is the most detailed victim-rights code in Indian criminal law.

How victims moved from spectators to participants

Figure 4: How victims moved from spectators to participants

Before 2016. The 2009 amendment to the CrPC defined 'victim', gave victims a right of appeal against acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence or inadequate compensation (proviso to Section 372), permitted a victim's advocate to assist the prosecution, and required States to frame victim compensation schemes (Section 357A).
Chapter IVA (2016). Protection against intimidation; dignified treatment; notice of all proceedings including bail; the right to be heard at bail, discharge, release, parole, conviction and sentence; relocation and protection of identity where needed; video recording of proceedings; and a scheme of rights and entitlements.
BNSS (2023). Carries forward the victim definition (Section 2(1)(y)), victim's appeal (Section 413) and compensation scheme (Section 396), and adds, for all cases, supply of the police report and documents to the victim's advocate (Section 230), information to the informant or victim about the progress of investigation (Section 193(3)), a hearing to the victim before withdrawal of prosecution (Section 360), and a statutory witness protection scheme (Section 398).

📖 Hariram Bhambhi v. Satyanarayan, 2021 INSC 701 (decided 29 October 2021)

Facts: The accused faced charges of murder and destruction of evidence together with offences under the SC/ST Act. The High Court granted him bail without notice to, or hearing of, the victim's family.

Held: A bench of D.Y. Chandrachud and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. set aside the bail order. The requirements of Section 15A(3) (notice of proceedings, including bail) and Section 15A(5) (right to be heard at bail and other stages) are mandatory. A bail order passed in breach of them cannot stand. The Court also observed that caste atrocities are not a thing of the past and that the Act's procedural safeguards must be enforced in substance.

Ratio: Victims' participatory rights under Section 15A are mandatory, and breach vitiates the order.

📖 Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, (2022) 9 SCC 321

Facts: In the Lakhimpur Kheri case, the High Court granted bail to the principal accused in a case arising from the deaths of protesting farmers, while the victims were not given an effective hearing.

Held: A bench led by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana set aside the bail order. A victim, as defined in the Code, has a legally vested right to be heard at every stage of the proceedings, from investigation through bail and trial to appeal or revision. The victim is distinct from the informant and cannot be treated as a mere spectator.

Ratio: Victim participation is a general principle of Indian criminal procedure; Section 15A of the SC/ST Act is its most developed statutory form.

Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka (2019). A victim's right of appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC is a substantive right that is not conditional on leave to appeal, reinforcing the victim's standing in the process.

7. Quick Revision and Memory Aids

'Formal, substantive, anti-subordination'. The three equality models; the Act lives in the last two.
'Klare coined, Navtej adopted'. Transformative constitutionalism.
'Top-dressing on undemocratic soil'. Ambedkar, 4 November 1948, on constitutional morality.
'Section 20 makes the Constitution win'. The Act overrides custom and usage.
'Forum, distance, speed, cost'. The four facets of access to justice (Anita Kushwaha, 2016).
'12(a) for SC/ST'. Free legal services under the Legal Services Authorities Act, regardless of income.
'Notice and hearing are mandatory'. Hariram Bhambhi (2021) on Section 15A(3) and (5).
'Victim is not a spectator'. Jagjeet Singh (2022).
'230, 193(3), 360, 398'. BNSS victim-oriented provisions: documents, progress updates, hearing before withdrawal, witness protection.

8. Frequently Asked Questions

How is the SC/ST Act an example of transformative constitutionalism?

It uses criminal law to change private and customary social relations that sustain caste hierarchy, turning the Constitution's promise of equality and dignity into enforceable obligations on individuals, not only the State.

What is constitutional morality and how does the Act reflect it?

It is adherence to the Constitution's core values even against popular or customary morality. The Act reflects it by overriding any inconsistent custom or usage (Section 20) and criminalising the enforcement of caste hierarchy.

Is a hearing to the victim mandatory before bail in an SC/ST Act case?

Yes. Notice to the victim and an opportunity of hearing under Section 15A(3) and (5) are mandatory, and a bail order passed without them can be set aside (Hariram Bhambhi, 2021).

Are SC/ST victims entitled to free legal aid?

Yes. Section 12(a) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 entitles every member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe to free legal services, and Section 21(2)(i) of the SC/ST Act requires States to provide legal aid to victims.

Which victim-rights features of the SC/ST Act now appear in the BNSS?

Supply of documents to the victim's advocate (Section 230), updates on the progress of investigation (Section 193(3)), a hearing before withdrawal of prosecution (Section 360) and a witness protection scheme (Section 398). Chapter IVA remains wider, particularly the right to be heard at bail and the video recording of proceedings.

9. Related Topics and Provisions

Topic 6: Objects and Constitutional Values. Substantive equality, social justice and dignity.
Topic 7: Constitutional Framework. Articles 14, 15, 21, 46, 338 to 342.
Sections 4, 14, 14A, 15, 15A, 20 and 21, SC/ST Act; Rule 7. The provisions discussed
BNSS Sections 2(1)(y), 193(3), 230, 360, 396, 398 and 413. Victim-oriented provisions of the general law.
Article 39A; Section 12(a), Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Free legal aid.