All NotesCriminal LawSC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

Development of Law against Untouchability and Caste Discrimination

The law against untouchability in India has developed in three layers. The first is constitutional: Article 17 abolishes untouchability outright and makes its enforcement an offence, supported by a set of equality, dignity and protective provisions. The second is statutory: Parliament translated Article 17 into the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955, strengthened it as the Protection of Civil Rights Act in 1976, and then, finding that discrimination had turned into violence, enacted the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, along with laws against bonded labour and manual scavenging. The third is judicial: the courts have defined 'untouchability', applied it to private persons, opened temples, protected sanitation workers and, as recently as 2024, struck down caste-based work in prisons. This note follows that development in order.

1. Article 17: Abolition of Untouchability

Article 17, Constitution of India

"Untouchability" is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. The enforcement of any disability arising out of "Untouchability" shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.

  • Absolute, without exception. Unlike most fundamental rights, Article 17 contains no proviso or exception permitting reasonable restrictions.
  • Binds private persons. Article 17 is addressed to society as a whole, not merely to the State. It is one of the few fundamental rights enforceable against private individuals (People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, 1982).
  • Self-declaratory, but penal enforcement needs law. The abolition takes effect by the Constitution itself, but punishment must be prescribed by law.
  • 'In any form'. The practice is forbidden in every form, including new or disguised forms, which gives the Article a dynamic reach.
  • Parliament alone legislates. Article 35(a)(ii) vests exclusive power in Parliament to make laws prescribing punishment for acts declared offences under Part III, which includes Article 17. State legislatures cannot enact such penal laws.

2. Meaning of 'Untouchability'

Neither the Constitution nor the Protection of Civil Rights Act defines 'untouchability'. The word is placed in inverted commas in Article 17 precisely to signal that it is used in a particular historical sense, not in its literal meaning of refusing to touch someone.

📖 Devarajiah v. B. Padmanna, AIR 1958 Mys 84

Held: The Mysore High Court held that 'untouchability' in Article 17 is not to be understood in its literal or grammatical sense, which would cover every social exclusion (for example, of persons with contagious diseases or of persons temporarily 'impure' because of birth or death in the family). It refers to the practice as it had developed historically in India, that is, the social disabilities imposed on certain classes of persons by reason of their birth in certain castes.

Ratio: Article 17 targets caste-based untouchability as a historical institution, not every form of social avoidance.

⚠ Article 17 and caste discrimination are not identical

Article 17 is about untouchability, the most extreme form of caste discrimination. Wider caste discrimination is addressed by Articles 14, 15 and 16, and caste-based violence by the 1989 Act. In an answer, show how the three work together: Article 17 abolishes the practice, Article 15 prohibits discrimination, and the Atrocities Act punishes the violence used to enforce the hierarchy.

3. The Wider Constitutional Framework

Article 17 is the centrepiece, but the Constitution surrounds it with provisions that together form a shield against caste discrimination.

The constitutional shield against caste discrimination

Figure 1: The constitutional shield against caste discrimination

  • Article 15(2). No citizen shall, on grounds only of caste (among others), be subject to any disability with regard to access to shops, restaurants, hotels and places of entertainment, or the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained out of State funds or dedicated to public use. This clause operates against private persons as well.
  • Article 23. Prohibits traffic in human beings, begar and other forced labour. It is the constitutional basis of the laws against bonded labour, which fell most heavily on Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
  • Article 25(2)(b). Permits laws throwing open Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus, the foundation of temple entry legislation.
  • Article 46. Directs the State to promote the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections, in particular the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and to protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation.
  • Articles 338 and 338A. The National Commission for Scheduled Castes and the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (separated by the Constitution (Eighty-ninth Amendment) Act, 2003) investigate and monitor safeguards and inquire into complaints.
  • Articles 341 and 342. The President, by public notification after consultation with the Governor, specifies the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for each State; only Parliament can alter the lists.

📖 People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, (1982) 3 SCC 235

Facts: Workers employed by contractors on construction projects for the 1982 Asian Games in Delhi were paid less than the minimum wage and denied other labour law protections.

Held: Payment of less than the minimum wage amounted to 'forced labour' under Article 23. The Court also explained that certain fundamental rights, including Articles 17, 23 and 24, are enforceable against private individuals, and that the State is under a constitutional duty to ensure that they are not violated by anyone.

Ratio: Article 17 operates horizontally; the State must act against private violations of it.

4. Temple Entry and Article 25(2)(b)

Exclusion from temples was one of the most visible forms of untouchability, and temple entry laws were among the earliest legislative responses. After 1950, they were tested against the rights of religious denominations under Article 26.

📖 Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore, AIR 1958 SC 255

Facts: The trustees of a temple belonging to the Gowda Saraswath Brahmin denomination challenged the Madras Temple Entry Authorisation Act, 1947, which opened Hindu public temples to excluded classes, claiming the denomination's right under Article 26(b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion.

Held: Applying harmonious construction, the Supreme Court held that the right of a denomination under Article 26(b) is subject to a law made under Article 25(2)(b) throwing open a public temple to all classes of Hindus. The denomination could, however, exclude the general public from certain special ceremonies in which only its members could participate.

Ratio: Temple entry laws prevail over denominational claims to exclude by caste; only limited, genuinely religious exclusions survive.

📖 Shastri Yagnapurushdasji v. Muldas Bhudardas Vaishya, AIR 1966 SC 1119

Facts: Followers of the Swaminarayan sect (Satsangis) contended that they were not Hindus and that their temples were therefore outside the Bombay Hindu Places of Public Worship (Entitlement to Entry) Act, 1956, which had opened temples to Harijans.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the Satsangis were Hindus and their temples were subject to the Act. Their apprehension that entry of Harijans would pollute the temple was founded on superstition and ignorance of the true teachings of Hinduism and of their own founder.

Ratio: A claim of separate religious identity cannot be used to preserve untouchability in public worship.

5. The Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955

Enacted under Article 35 and in force from 1 June 1955, the Untouchability (Offences) Act was Parliament's first all-India penal law against untouchability. It made it an offence to enforce religious disabilities (such as preventing entry into a place of public worship), social disabilities (such as denying access to shops, restaurants, public wells, water sources, roads or cremation grounds), to refuse admission to hospitals, dispensaries and educational institutions, and to refuse to sell goods or render services, on the ground of untouchability.

The Act had serious weaknesses. Punishments were mild (imprisonment up to six months or fine, often only a fine), offences could be compounded, and prosecutions were rare. The Elayaperumal Committee (1965 to 1969) documented these failures and recommended a stronger law.

6. The Protection of Civil Rights Act: the 1976 Overhaul

The Untouchability (Offences) Amendment and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1976 (Act 106 of 1976), in force from 19 November 1976, renamed the law the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and reshaped it. Section 2(a) defines 'civil rights' as any right accruing to a person by reason of the abolition of untouchability by Article 17.

  • Offences (Sections 3 to 7A). Religious disabilities (s.3), social disabilities (s.4), refusing admission to hospitals and institutions (s.5), refusing to sell goods or render services (s.6), other offences including insulting a member of a Scheduled Caste on the ground of untouchability and preaching or justifying untouchability (s.7), and compelling a person on the ground of untouchability to do scavenging or similar work (s.7A).
  • Minimum punishment. For offences under Sections 3 to 7, imprisonment of not less than one month and not more than six months, and fine of not less than one hundred and not more than five hundred rupees; enhanced punishment on subsequent conviction (s.11).
  • Neglect by public servants. A public servant who wilfully neglects the investigation of an offence under the Act is deemed to have abetted it (s.10).
  • Collective fine (s.10A). The State Government may impose a collective fine on the inhabitants of an area found to be involved in or abetting such offences. The 1989 Act later borrowed this provision through its Section 16.
  • Presumption (s.12, carried over from the 1955 Act). Where an act constituting an offence is committed in relation to a member of a Scheduled Caste, the court shall presume, unless the contrary is proved, that it was committed on the ground of untouchability.
  • Procedure. Offences are cognizable (s.15) and cannot be compounded, and Section 15A obliges State Governments to provide legal aid, set up special courts and committees and identify areas where members of Scheduled Castes are under such disabilities.
  • No probation (s.16A). The Probation of Offenders Act does not apply to a person above fourteen years found guilty of an offence under the Act.

📖 State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu Ingale, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 469 (decided 1 December 1992)

Facts: The respondents, threatening to use a gun, prevented members of a Scheduled Caste from taking water from a public water source in their village on the ground of untouchability. They were convicted under the PCR Act, but the High Court in revision acquitted them, finding the testimony discrepant.

Held: The Supreme Court reversed and restored the convictions (the appeal abated against one respondent who had died). It traced the history of untouchability and the constitutional scheme, found the evidence reliable, and stressed that courts must interpret civil rights legislation purposively to give effect to Article 17 and not defeat it on technicalities.

Ratio: Courts must be sensitive to the social reality of untouchability; the PCR Act is to be construed to achieve its constitutional object.

7. From Civil Rights to Atrocities: the 1989 Act and its Amendments

The PCR Act could penalise discrimination, but not the violence that followed when Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes resisted it. The SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 filled this gap (see Topics 1 and 2). The two statutes continue side by side, doing different jobs.

The PCR Act and the Atrocities Act compared

Figure 2: The PCR Act and the Atrocities Act compared

  • 2016 amendment (Act 1 of 2016). Recast Section 3(1) and added new offences (garlanding with footwear, tonsuring and similar indignities, abuse by caste name within public view, social and economic boycott, devadasi dedication, manual scavenging, denial of access to burial grounds and common property resources), added Section 3(2)(va) and the Schedule, replaced the 'on the ground that' test in Section 3(2)(v) with a knowledge test, added the presumption of knowledge in Section 8(c), created Exclusive Special Courts and Section 14A appeals, and inserted Chapter IVA on victims' and witnesses' rights.
  • 2018 amendment (Act 27 of 2018). Inserted Section 18A after Subhash Kashinath Mahajan (2018): no preliminary enquiry before an FIR, no approval before arrest, and no anticipatory bail notwithstanding any court order. Upheld in Prathvi Raj Chauhan (2020).

8. Allied Laws: Bonded Labour and Manual Scavenging

Untouchability was sustained by forced and 'polluting' labour. Parliament therefore enacted laws that attack its economic base.

  • Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. Abolished bonded labour, extinguished bonded debts and provided for rehabilitation, implementing Article 23.
  • Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993. Prohibited employment of manual scavengers and construction of dry latrines, but was poorly enforced.
  • Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013. Widened the definition of manual scavenger, prohibited hazardous cleaning of sewers and septic tanks without protective gear, and made offences cognizable and non-bailable, with a duty to rehabilitate.
  • Link with the Atrocities Act. Compelling a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe member to do begar or bonded labour has been an offence under Section 3(1) since 1989; since 2016, employing or permitting such a member to do manual scavenging is also an offence.

📖 Safai Karamchari Andolan v. Union of India, (2014) 11 SCC 224

Facts: A public interest petition by an organisation of sanitation workers sought enforcement of the 1993 Act and the end of manual scavenging, which is performed overwhelmingly by members of Scheduled Castes.

Held: The Court held that manual scavenging violates Articles 14, 17, 21 and 23 and directed the States to enforce the 2013 Act, rehabilitate manual scavengers, and pay compensation of ten lakh rupees to the families of all persons who died in sewer or septic tank work since 1993. In Balram Singh v. Union of India (2023), the Court raised the compensation for sewer deaths to thirty lakh rupees.

Ratio: Manual scavenging is a continuing form of untouchability that the State must eradicate and compensate.

9. Recent Judicial Developments

📖 Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 753 (decided 3 October 2024)

Facts: A journalist challenged provisions of several State prison manuals that allotted prison work by caste (cleaning and sweeping to certain castes, cooking to others), segregated prisoners by caste, and described members of denotified tribes as 'habitual offenders'.

Held: A bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud struck down these provisions as violating Articles 14, 15, 17, 21 and 23. Assigning 'menial' work by caste and treating certain communities as born criminals perpetuates untouchability and denies dignity. The Court directed States to revise their manuals, remove caste columns from prison registers, and took suo motu cognizance to monitor discrimination in prisons.

Ratio: Article 17 reaches institutional practices of the State itself; caste-based division of labour in prisons is unconstitutional.

  • Sub-classification of Scheduled Castes. In State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (1 August 2024), a seven-judge bench held by majority that States may sub-classify Scheduled Castes for reservation to reach the most backward among them, overruling E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P. (2005). The decision concerns reservation, but it recognises that the Scheduled Castes are not a homogeneous class.
  • Caste insult and the Atrocities Act. Shajan Skaria (2024) and Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain (2025) refined the relationship between the anticipatory bail bar and the requirement of a caste-linked intention to humiliate (Topic 1).
  • International dimension. India has ratified the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination treats caste as 'descent-based' discrimination (General Recommendation 29, 2002), a view India has contested, maintaining that caste is not race.

Recap: legislative and judicial development after the Constitution

Figure 3: Recap: legislative and judicial development after the Constitution

10. Quick Revision and Memory Aids

  • '17 abolishes, 35 punishes'. Article 17 abolishes untouchability; Article 35(a)(ii) gives Parliament the exclusive power to punish it.
  • 'Untouchability in quotes'. Historical, caste-based meaning, not literal (Devarajiah, 1958).
  • '17, 23, 24 reach private persons'. PUDR (1982).
  • '25(2)(b) beats 26(b)'. Temple entry laws prevail over denominational exclusion (Venkataramana Devaru, 1958).
  • '55, 69, 76'. Untouchability (Offences) Act 1955; Elayaperumal Committee report 1969; renamed PCR Act 1976.
  • '1 to 6 and 100 to 500'. PCR Act minimum punishment: one to six months and fine of one hundred to five hundred rupees.
  • 'Civil rights law is the alarm; atrocities law is the brigade'. PCR Act 1955 versus PoA Act 1989.
  • '76 bonds, 93 latrines, 13 sewers'. Bonded Labour Act 1976; Dry Latrines Act 1993; Manual Scavengers Act 2013.
  • '10 lakh to 30 lakh'. Sewer death compensation: Safai Karamchari Andolan (2014) to Balram Singh (2023).
  • 'Prisons too'. Sukanya Shantha (2024): caste-based prison work violates Article 17.

11. Frequently Asked Questions

Is 'untouchability' defined anywhere?

No. Neither the Constitution nor the PCR Act defines it. Courts have read it in its historical sense as the caste-based social disabilities imposed on certain classes by reason of birth (Devarajiah v. Padmanna, 1958).

Can a State legislature make an offence of practising untouchability?

No. Article 35(a)(ii) vests exclusive power in Parliament to prescribe punishment for acts declared offences under Part III, including Article 17.

Is Article 17 enforceable against private persons?

Yes. In PUDR v. Union of India (1982) the Supreme Court held that Articles 17, 23 and 24 are enforceable against private individuals and that the State is bound to prevent their violation. Article 15(2) also binds private persons by its own terms.

What is the difference between the PCR Act and the Atrocities Act?

The PCR Act punishes the practice of untouchability and the enforcement of disabilities, and can apply to any offender. The Atrocities Act punishes violence, humiliation and exploitation of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe members by persons outside those communities, with heavier punishments and special procedure.

What did the Supreme Court decide in Sukanya Shantha (2024)?

That prison manual provisions allotting work by caste, segregating prisoners by caste and labelling denotified tribes as habitual offenders violate Articles 14, 15, 17, 21 and 23, and must be removed.

12. Related Topics and Provisions