Despite the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, caste-based violence continues unabated in India. Critically examine the structural and institutional gaps in implementation.

The SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was enacted to punish caste atrocities and provide Special Courts, relief and rehabilitation. Yet 55,685 cases of crimes against SCs were registered in 2024 alone [1], and the recent deaths of an inter-caste youth and girl in Mayiladuthurai, Tamil Nadu [2] show that the gaps are as much structural as institutional.

Strengths of the statutory framework

• Offences are cognizable and non-bailable; the 2018 Amendment inserted Section 18A, barring preliminary inquiry, approval before arrest, and anticipatory bail, reversing the Supreme Court's dilution [3].
• The 2015 Amendment expanded the list of atrocities and provided for Exclusive Special Courts; central assistance funds SC/ST Protection Cells, special police stations, victim relief and inter-caste marriage incentives [1].

Structural gaps

• Caste endogamy is enforced by families and caste panchayats; there is no standalone "honour killing" offence, such deaths being prosecuted only as murder or abetment under the BNS.
• Victims' economic dependence on dominant castes produces compromise, complaint withdrawal and social boycott.
• Chronic under-reporting, aggravated by low awareness of remedies such as the National Helpline against Atrocities (14566) [4].

Institutional gaps

• Low conviction rates and case pendency persist, as Exclusive Special Courts and Special Public Prosecutors are not uniformly operational across districts [4].
• Police-level dilution: delayed FIRs, casual inquests under BNSS Section 194 [2], and weak charge-sheeting erode the case before trial.
• Uneven identification of atrocity-prone areas, weak witness protection and delayed Rule 12(4) relief [1].

The Act's design is sound; its enforcement chain is not. Strengthening exclusive courts, time-bound charge-sheeting, victim-witness protection and district-level vigilance committees — combined with social measures like inter-caste marriage support and awareness drives — can close the gap. Realising Article 17's promise of a caste-free social order requires the Act to be matched by administrative will and social reform.