Opinion Beed caste atrocity shows we are still far away from achieving caste equality

The SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, enacted on September 11, 1989, was designed to protect marginalised communities from caste-based discrimination and violence. It defines atrocities as “offences” committed against Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) by non-SC/ST individuals, including acts like physical assault, humiliation, and the denial of rights. Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, cited in the FIR registered by Vaibhav in Beed, addresses intentional insults or intimidation meant to humiliate SC/ST members in public view, punishable with imprisonment from six months to five years and a fine. Section 3(1)(s) covers abuses using casteist slurs, while Section 3(2) (va) enhances penalties for offences under the Indian Penal Code (now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023).

The FIR, registered under multiple sections of the BNS, 2023 (Section 119(1) for causing hurt, Section 333 for cheating, and Section 351(2) for criminal force), alongside SC/ST Act provisions, reflects the gravity of the incident. However, the response from local authorities raises serious concerns about the Act’s enforcement. Vaibhav’s brother, Dhananjay, according to reports, alleges that the police delayed registering the FIR, forcing the family to wait hours at the Shirur Kasar police station. Even after persistent pressure, the police initially resisted including critical BNS sections related to attempted murder. Shockingly, a counter-complaint was reportedly filed by the wife of the main accused, falsely alleging theft and threats by Vaibhav’s family.

This case mirrors broader trends documented by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). In 2022, India recorded 57,582 cases of atrocities against SCs, up from 50,291 in 2020. Maharashtra alone reported 2,743 cases in 2022, a steady rise from 2,569 in 2020. Uttar Pradesh topped the list with 15,368 cases, followed by Rajasthan (8,752) and Madhya Pradesh (7,733). In Maharashtra, however, the conviction rates for these crimes remain alarmingly low, undermining the Act’s purpose. For SCs, the conviction rate was a mere 8.8 per cent in 2018, dipping to 7.2 per cent in 2019, rising slightly to 11.8 per cent in 2020, then falling again to 10.7 per cent in 2021 and 8.9 per cent in 2022. For STs, the rates were similarly dismal: 11.3 per cent in 2018, 11.9 per cent in 2019, 12.5 per cent in 2020, 11.8 per cent in 2021, and 12.8 per cent in 2022. By the end of 2022, 14,504 cases involving crimes against SCs and 4,149 against STs were still pending trial in Maharashtra, reflecting a backlog that delays justice for victims.

The Act mandates robust mechanisms like Special Courts and Special Public Prosecutors to ensure speedy trials (Sections 14 and 15). It also prohibits anticipatory bail (Section 18) and mandates state governments to provide legal aid and rehabilitation (Section 21). Yet, Dhananjay’s account of delayed police response, insensitive officers, and hospital negligence in initiating a medico-legal case highlights a gap between the law’s intent and its execution.

The Beed incident also exposes the social and political pressures that undermine justice. The Act’s provisions for externment (Section 10) and forfeiture of property (Section 7) could deter such intimidation, but their application remains rare. The collective silence of 200 villagers during the assault further illustrates the social boycott faced by Dalit families.

The SC/ST Act remains a vital shield for India’s marginalised, but its effectiveness hinges on impartial enforcement and societal change. Without systemic reforms — stronger police accountability, proactive legal aid, and widespread awareness — the Act risks remaining a paper promise, leaving countless Vaibhavs vulnerable to the enduring shadow of caste.

The writer is a research scholar at Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, United Kingdom