Distinguish between the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Why has the former become largely dormant?

Article 17 abolishes untouchability. The Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 put it into law [1], and in 1976 it was renamed the Protection of Civil Rights (PCR) Act and made cognizable [2]. The PoA Act, 1989 came later and is stronger [3]. The two laws are meant to work together, but the PCR Act recorded only 24 cases in 2023 [4]. It is almost dormant.

Distinction

Basis	PCR Act, 1955	PoA Act, 1989
Target	Civil disabilities: being denied shops, temples, wells or services [1]	Atrocities: violence, humiliation, dispossession [3]
Victim	Anyone harmed "on the ground of untouchability" [1]	Only SC/ST persons, when the accused is not SC/ST [3]
Ideology	Punishes preaching or justifying untouchability [1]	Deals with acts, not the ideas behind them [3]
Penalty	Up to 2 years (1976 scheme) [2]	Minimum sentences; heavier for grave offences [3]
Support	Section 15A duties on governments and an annual report [1]	Exclusive special courts, victim relief, central funding [5]

Why the PCR Act is dormant

• Police use the PoA Act instead: when an SC victim suffers the same act, police book it under the stronger PoA Act. In 2023 there were 53,372 PoA cases [6] against 24 PCR cases [4].
• Weak deterrence: a maximum of two years [2] makes the PCR Act the weaker choice for both police and complainants.
• Under-reporting: police can act without a warrant, since the offence is cognizable [2]. But everyday practices, such as separate tumblers at tea stalls or being kept away from wells, are rarely reported. Complaints go to police stations that are often part of the village power structure. Only 16 cases were recorded in 2019 [7].
• Trials stuck in court: 965 cases are pending [4]. That is about forty years of filings at the current rate, so the 1976 power to hold quick summary trials is clearly not being used.
• Accountability clause unused: public servants who neglect investigation can be punished as abettors [2], but this is rarely applied.
• Lost in joint reviews: PCR enforcement gets little attention in combined PCR–PoA review meetings [8].

The PCR Act is dormant, but it is not redundant. It is the only law that covers victims outside the SC/ST list, and the only one that punishes the ideology of untouchability. States should use their Section 15A powers to survey where the practice persists. The Centre could tie its funding to setting up summary-trial benches [5], and the PCR Act should get its own place on review agendas. Bringing the Act back into use, and aligning it with the PoA Act, would give Article 17 real effect and move India closer to SDG 16, which calls for justice for all.