The SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act: what counts as an atrocity and how it is tried

The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was enacted because existing criminal law was considered inadequate to deal with caste-based humiliation, violence and dispossession. Article 17 of the Constitution abolishes untouchability and forbids its practice in any form, and the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 gave effect to that provision. The 1989 Act goes further by defining a set of offences, called atrocities, when committed by a person who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe against a member of those communities.

The offences listed in the Act include forcing a person to eat or drink an offensive substance, parading a person naked, sexual assault of a woman, wrongful occupation of land, social or economic boycott, and abuse by caste name in public. The 2015 amendment added new offences, including garlanding with footwear, denying access to irrigation facilities or forest rights, and dedicating a woman as a devadasi. The Act also provides for relief and rehabilitation of victims, including immediate assistance through the district administration.

Procedure is a distinctive part of the Act. Offences under it are cognisable, meaning police may arrest without a warrant, and investigation is to be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. State governments are to establish special courts, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, to try these offences, and special public prosecutors are appointed for them. Section 18 bars anticipatory bail where a prima facie case is made out, although courts have held that anticipatory bail may be considered where no prima facie case exists.

The Act has been debated in the courts and in Parliament. In 2018 the Supreme Court introduced safeguards against arrest, and Parliament responded the same year with an amendment restoring the earlier position on arrest and anticipatory bail. Supporters argue that strong procedure is necessary because victims may face social and economic pressure not to complain. Critics argue that any criminal law must guard against misuse. Both arguments point to the same test: whether investigation, trial and relief work quickly and fairly in practice.