Seventy-five years after Article 17 and fifty years after the 1976 amendment, untouchability persists in new forms. Critically examine the effectiveness of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955.

Article 17 abolishes untouchability "in any form". The Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 enforces it, and the 1976 amendment renamed it the Protection of Civil Rights (PCR) Act [1]. Fifty years on, the Act is strong in design but weak in delivery.

Strengths: a robust legal design

• Wide scope: it punishes civil disabilities imposed "on the ground of untouchability" in temples, shops and at water sources (Sections 3–7A). It protects any victim, not only SC/ST persons [1].
• Targets the ideology: preaching or justifying untouchability is itself an offence [1].
• 1976 teeth: offences became cognizable and non-compoundable, minor offences can be tried summarily, and convicts are disqualified from contesting legislatures [2].
• State accountability: negligent public servants are punishable as abettors [2]. Section 15A places duties on governments and requires an annual report to Parliament [1].

Weaknesses: a law close to dormant

• Under-reporting: only 16 cases (2019) and 25 (2020) were registered nationwide [3]. This shows victims' reluctance to complain and police reluctance to register cases. It does not show that practices like separate tumblers at tea stalls have ended.
• Displaced by the PoA Act: 53,372 cases were registered under the SC/ST (PoA) Act in 2023 [4]. Police prefer that stronger law over the PCR Act's two-year maximum sentence [2].
• Judicial delay: nearly a thousand PCR cases are pending in courts [5], so the promise of summary trials is not being kept. Long trials turn witnesses hostile, which leaves "non-compoundable" a safeguard on paper only.
• Split responsibility: the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment is the nodal body, but policing and prosecution belong to the States [1].
• Narrow framing: newer forms such as social boycott, discrimination in renting homes and online casteist abuse fit poorly within its civil-disability offences.

Way forward

• States should use their Section 15A powers to identify untouchability-prone areas and set up special courts [1].
• The PCR Act should be a separate agenda item in Centre–State reviews such as the 29th Review Meeting [6].
• Central funds could be linked to setting up summary-trial benches, and the abettor clause should actually be used against negligent officers.
• The PCR and PoA Acts should be harmonised, not merged by repeal.

The PCR Act has the right ideas: cognizability, State accountability and penalties for preaching untouchability. The problem is weak enforcement. Reviving it alongside the PoA Act, backed by data-driven monitoring and quicker trials, can make the Article 17 guarantee real. That would serve constitutional fraternity and dignity, and SDG 10 on reduced inequalities.