Why do administrative orders on access to common resources often fail at village level? Suggest a framework for preventive enforcement under the SC/ST (PoA) Act.

Article 17 abolishes untouchability "in any form". The 2015 amendment to the SC/ST (PoA) Act made it an offence to block SCs from burial grounds or to impose an economic boycott on them. Yet in Perumbali (Erode, Tamil Nadu), dominant-caste villagers defied a Tahsildar's order declaring a cemetery common to all [1]. The case shows that such orders change land records but not who holds power in the village.

Why administrative orders fail at village level

• Paper vs power: an SC man was buried in the "common" cemetery only under police and Revenue protection [1].
• Economic dependence: SC labourers were told they would get no more work from the dominant caste. Two SC men then fell at BC villagers' feet [1], which was a forced "compromise" and not a real settlement.
• One-day enforcement: protection ended with the burial, but the boycott threat continues after officials leave [1].
• Weak deterrence: only 33.9% of PoA trials in SC cases ended in conviction in 2024 [2]. Witnesses who depend on the accused for work are easy to pressure into withdrawing.
• Settlement culture: officials often prefer "peace meetings" to FIRs, so crimes get recorded as reconciliations.

Framework for preventive enforcement

Map → Register → Monitor → Try speedily → Empower

Fig: Shifting from reactive escort to preventive enforcement

• Map: the Collector-chaired District Vigilance and Monitoring Committee should list villages prone to atrocities and commons under dispute.
• Register: file FIRs for the boycott threat and for obstruction under the 2015 offences, instead of only providing an escort.
• Monitor use, not orders: check regularly whether SC families actually use the commons. Peace committees should work alongside prosecution, not replace it.
• Speedy trial: extend Exclusive Special Courts beyond the 217 now in 15 States/UTs [3]. Use central assistance for victim relief and witness protection [3].
• Accountability: use Section 4 of the Act, which penalises public servants who neglect their duties.
• Break dependence: provide assured MGNREGA work. Study Maharashtra's 2016 anti-social-boycott law and Tamil Nadu's Samathuvapuram mixed-housing model.

Orders fail when the dominant caste's economic and social power meets only a paper declaration. A framework that combines mapping, prompt prosecution, sustained monitoring and economic empowerment can turn a formal right into real dignity. That would fulfil the Constitution's promise of fraternity and the goals of Articles 15(2) and 46, and advance SDG 10 (reduced inequalities).