The dominance of a single state in a specific crime category in NCRB data raises questions of both enforcement capacity and comparative police accountability. Discuss in the context of SC/ST atrocities in India.

Q. The dominance of a single state in a specific crime category in NCRB data raises questions of both enforcement capacity and comparative police accountability. Discuss in the context of SC/ST atrocities in India. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

When the NCRB created a distinct crime head for "prevent or deny or obstruct usage of public place/passage" under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, one State began to fill it almost entirely — Uttar Pradesh reported 173 of 180 national cases in 2023 [1]. Such concentration maps registration practice as much as it maps caste discrimination.

The pattern in the data - In 2017, the head's first year, only 12 cases were recorded nationally and UP reported zero; its share then rose to 68% (2018), 80% (2019) and 300 of 305 cases in 2022 [1]. - In 2023 only Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan reported the residual handful — an implausible claim that untouchability has vanished elsewhere [1].

Enforcement capacity - Denial of access is a cognizable offence; the 2015 Amendment added such offences, mandated Exclusive Special Courts and Special Public Prosecutors, and set a two-month trial target [3]. - Capacity is funded, not automatic: the Centre assists States for SC/ST Protection Cells, special police stations and Special Courts [2][4]. Persistently low conviction rates expose investigation and prosecution gaps rather than weak law.

Comparative police accountability - Article 17 abolishes untouchability and Article 15(2) bars caste-based exclusion from public places; near-zero returns from States with large SC populations therefore suggest non-registration, not absence of the offence. - NCRB compiles what State police submit, and law and order is a State subject, so the Union can only advise on implementation [2] — making raw inter-State ranking misleading. - Perversely, a State that registers FIRs diligently appears the worst offender, while victim distrust and fear of social retaliation keep other States' numbers flattering.

Read correctly, UP's dominance is a signal about counting, not only about crime. The remedy lies in mandatory FIR registration audits, functional Special Courts and disaggregated victim-survey data to validate police records — so that Article 17's promise is measured honestly and enforced uniformly.

(~320 words)

Sources: 1. NCRB, Crime in India reports (crime-head data, 2017–2023) — introduction of the public-place crime head in 2017 and State-wise case figures 2. MHA, Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 2946 (18 March 2025) — central assistance for Protection Cells/Special Courts; law and order as a State subject 3. PIB, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 enforced from 26 January 2016 — new offences, Exclusive Special Courts, Special PPs, two-month trial norm 4. PIB, Government Strengthens Implementation of SC/ST (PoA) Act Through Financial Assistance to States and UTs — funding of enforcement machinery