Low registration and high pendency of cases under anti-untouchability laws reflect institutional rather than legislative failure. Discuss.

Article 17 abolishes untouchability "in any form," and the Protection of Civil Rights (PCR) Act, 1955 makes its practice a crime. Yet only 24 cases were registered under the Act in 2023, while 965 were pending in courts [1]. These figures point mainly to weak enforcement rather than a weak statute.

Legislative framework: largely robust

• Offences are cognisable, so police can register a case and act without a magistrate's order [2].
• Section 12 requires courts to presume that an offence against an SC member was committed on the ground of untouchability. This shifts the burden of proof to the accused [2].
• Section 15A requires States to set up special courts, committees and periodic surveys. A collective fine can also be imposed on an offending area [2].

Institutional failure: the main cause

• Under-registration: 24 cases nationwide cannot reflect how widely the practice actually occurs. This points to complaints not being made or recorded [1].
• Pendency: the backlog is about 40 times one year's new registrations. Trials drag on for years, so the law loses its deterrent effect [1].
• Weak implementation: at the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment's 29th Review Meeting, the agenda still included low charge-sheet rates, pendency, setting up Exclusive Special Courts, and irregular Vigilance and Monitoring Committee meetings [3].
• Monitoring bodies not fully used: the NCSC has civil-court powers to inquire into denied safeguards under Article 338 [4]. These powers are seldom used early enough to prevent cases from stalling.

Legislative gaps: a partial counterview

• "Untouchability" is undefined in both the Constitution and the Act. Courts must therefore decide whether symbolic acts, such as "purification" rituals, are covered.
• Overlap with the stronger SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 diverts cases away from the PCR Act. Low PCR numbers therefore partly reflect which law was chosen.

Way forward

• Publish State-wise data on registrations, FIR delays and pendency in the Centre's annual Section 15A report to Parliament [2].
• Set up Exclusive Special Courts with time-bound trials, and map hotspots through the statutory surveys [2][3].
• Clarify through judicial guidance that symbolic exclusion falls within "any form."

The PCR Act's design is largely adequate. Its failure lies in institutions that do not register, prosecute or monitor cases. Special courts, transparent data and a proactive NCSC can close this enforcement gap, and targeted legal clarity can cover symbolic forms. Together with social reform, these steps would give effect to Article 17 and the Preamble's promise of fraternity and dignity, in line with SDG 16 on just institutions.