Protective laws: untouchability, atrocities and manual scavenging

Detail

1. Constitutional base: Art. 17 and Art. 15(2)

• Art. 17 abolishes untouchability and forbids practising it "in any form". Untouchability means treating people of certain castes as "impure" and keeping them away from others.
• Enforcing any disability that comes from untouchability is an offence, which means it is punishable by law.

• The Constitution does not define the word. Parliament fills in the details through law.

• Art. 17 binds private persons, not just the State. Most Fundamental Rights only limit the government. Art. 17 also stops a shopkeeper, a temple trustee or a neighbour from practising untouchability.

• Art. 15(2) also binds private persons. No citizen can be denied access to:
• shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment;

• wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort.

• Linked rights: Art. 14 (equality before law), Art. 21 (life with dignity), Art. 23 (ban on forced labour) and Art. 46 (a Directive Principle: the State must protect SCs and STs from social injustice and exploitation).

2. NCERT illustrations: untouchability has not ended

• Class 11, Rights in the Indian Constitution:
• Swadesh Kumar's Dalit friend is served tea in an earthen cup. Other guests get regular cups. This is untouchability that continues in everyday life.

• Hadibandhu's community in Puri, Odisha: the men refused to wash the feet of upper-caste guests at a wedding. In response, the community's women were beaten and paraded. This shows that untouchability is enforced through violence.

• Class 10, Gender, Religion and Caste: untouchability "has not ended completely", even though the Constitution bans it.

3. Protection of Civil Rights (PCR) Act 1955

• Origin: it was passed as the Untouchability (Offences) Act 1955 and renamed the Protection of Civil Rights Act by the 1976 amendment. It is the main law that gives effect to Art. 17.
• What it punishes: enforcing untouchability, for example:
• barring entry to temples or places of worship;
• refusing access to shops, hotels, water sources, ghats or roads;
• refusing to sell goods or provide services;

• insulting a person on the ground of untouchability.

• The 1976 changes:

• tougher penalties;
• collective fines, meaning a fine imposed on the whole population of an area where the offence keeps happening;

• special courts to speed up trials.

• Its gap: it dealt with discrimination, not with violence against Dalits. That gap led to the 1989 Act.

4. SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989

• Purpose: to punish atrocities, meaning serious crimes against SCs and STs that are committed because of their caste or tribe. Examples are assault, sexual violence, land grabbing, forcing someone to eat or drink something obnoxious, and social humiliation.
• Key features:
• A list of specific atrocities (s.3), with minimum punishments.
• Special Courts and Special Public Prosecutors (government lawyers who handle only these cases).
• No anticipatory bail (s.18): anticipatory bail is bail granted before arrest under s.438 of the CrPC. Section 18 says it is not available for offences under this Act.
• Externment: a person likely to commit an atrocity can be removed from an area.
• Relief and rehabilitation: the SC/ST (PoA) Rules 1995 set out money relief for victims and the duties of officials.

5. The 2015 amendment (in force from 2016)

• New offences were added, such as:
• tonsuring (forcibly shaving the head or moustache);
• garlanding with footwear;

• social or economic boycott.

• Exclusive Special Courts were created, along with Exclusive Special Public Prosecutors. Trials must be time-bound, meaning they must finish within a fixed period.

• A new chapter on the rights of victims and witnesses: they get protection, travel and maintenance costs, and the right to be heard at every stage, including bail hearings.

6. The 2018–2020 litigation sequence

Step	Date	What happened
Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra	20 March 2018	The Supreme Court said anticipatory bail is not completely barred. It required a preliminary enquiry (a check of the complaint by a DSP before an FIR is registered) and prior approval before arrest. For ordinary persons, this was the approval of the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) [4].
Bharat bandh	2 April 2018	Dalit groups held a nationwide protest, saying the judgment weakened the Act.
SC/ST (PoA) Amendment Act 2018	Bill introduced in the Lok Sabha on 3 Aug 2018; passed by the Lok Sabha on 6 Aug and the Rajya Sabha on 9 Aug 2018 [4]	It inserted s.18A to override the Mahajan directions.
Union of India v. State of Maharashtra (review)	1 October 2019	A three-judge Bench recalled (withdrew) the Mahajan directions.
Prithvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India	10 February 2020 [7]	The Court upheld s.18A. Anticipatory bail is possible only where there is no prima facie case, meaning the complaint does not show an offence even at first sight.

• What s.18A says [5]:
• (a) No preliminary enquiry is needed before an FIR is registered against an accused person.
• (b) The investigating officer needs no approval to arrest an accused person, if arrest is necessary.
• (c) No procedure other than the one in this Act or the CrPC applies.

• (d) s.438 CrPC (anticipatory bail) does not apply, "notwithstanding any judgment or order or direction of any Court".

• Why it matters: this is a clear case of Parliament overriding a judgment by changing the law. Parliament did not reject the Court's ruling outright. It removed the legal basis for that ruling.

7. The enforcement gap

• NCRB's Crime in India reports show that crimes registered against SCs and STs keep rising each year.
• Conviction rates are low: a large share of trials end in acquittal.
• Pendency is heavy: most cases are still waiting in court at the end of each year. (Check the latest NCRB edition for current figures.)
• Causes:
• weak investigation;
• hostile witnesses (witnesses who turn against the victim's case under pressure);
• too few Exclusive Special Courts;
• social pressure on victims to settle.

8. Manual scavenging: from the 1993 Act to the 2013 Act

• Manual scavenging means cleaning, carrying or handling human excreta by hand. In practice, the work has been forced on certain Dalit sub-castes.
• The 1993 Act: the Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act 1993 [8].
• It covered only dry latrines, meaning toilets without water flushing.
• It left out sewers and septic tanks.

• It was rarely enforced.

• The Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act 2013 replaced it. Its main features:

• Wider scope: it covers insanitary latrines, open drains, railway tracks, sewers and septic tanks.
• "Hazardous cleaning" is defined. It means manual cleaning of a sewer or septic tank where the employer has not provided protective gear and cleaning devices or ensured safety precautions [6].
• s.7 bans employing anyone for hazardous cleaning of sewers and septic tanks [6].
• Penalties under s.9 for breaking s.7 [6]:
  • first offence: up to 2 years in prison or a fine of up to ₹2 lakh, or both;
  • repeat offence: up to 5 years or ₹5 lakh, or both.
• Surveys to identify manual scavengers, followed by rehabilitation: one-time cash help, skill training, loans and housing.
• Offences are cognisable (police can arrest without a warrant) and non-bailable (bail is not a right; the court decides).

• Vigilance and monitoring committees work at the district, state and central levels.

• Monitoring body: the National Commission for Safai Karamcharis (NCSK). It is covered in the statutory-regulatory-bodies note.

9. Compensation for sewer deaths

• Safai Karamchari Andolan v. Union of India (2014): the Supreme Court fixed ₹10 lakh compensation for each sewer death, counting deaths since 1993.
• Dr Balram Singh v. Union of India (order dated 20 October 2023):
• Compensation for sewer deaths was raised to ₹30 lakh. This is the present-day value of the old ₹10 lakh [2].
• ₹20 lakh is payable for permanent disability.
• Following this order, 22 families of victims had received ₹30 lakh each (2024 parliamentary reply) [2].

• Exam trap: do not confuse this case with the 2024 Preamble case of the same name, which upheld "socialist" and "secular" in the Preamble.

• Official position: the government says deaths happen during hazardous cleaning of sewers and septic tanks. It reports no deaths from "manual scavenging" in the narrow sense, which means lifting excreta from insanitary latrines [2]. Critics see this as a problem of definition: the deaths happen, but they are counted under a different label. Sewer deaths continue (check current data).

10. The NAMASTE scheme (2023)

• NAMASTE stands for National Action for Mechanised Sanitation Ecosystem [3].
• It is run by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment together with the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs [3].
• Aims [3]:
• zero deaths in sanitation work;
• no direct contact between workers and human faecal matter;

• mechanised cleaning of sewers and septic tanks (using machines, not people).

• It also profiles sewer and septic tank workers, gives them safety gear and training, and offers loans to help them become sanitation entrepreneurs.

11. NCERT exercise: scavenging castes kept in the job

• Class 11, Rights in the Indian Constitution, exercise 7: people from certain castes are kept in scavenging work and cannot leave it. Five rights are violated:
• Art. 14: equality before law;
• Art. 15: no discrimination on grounds of caste;
• Art. 17: untouchability is abolished;
• Art. 21: life with dignity;
• Art. 23: no forced labour.

12. Bonded and forced labour

• Art. 23 bans traffic in human beings, begar (forced work without pay) and other forms of forced labour. Like Art. 17, it binds private employers too.
• Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1976:
• It frees all bonded labourers, meaning people forced to work to repay a debt.
• It cancels their debts.

• It makes bonded labour a punishable offence.

• PUDR v. Union of India (1982): this case concerned the workers who built the Asiad (1982 Asian Games) sites, as described in the Class 11 NCERT chapter.

• The Court held that paying less than the minimum wage is "forced labour" under Art. 23.

• Its reasoning was that economic need forces a worker to accept such pay.

• Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984): a public interest litigation (PIL) about bonded labourers in stone quarries and brick kilns near Delhi. The Court said the State has a duty to identify, free and rehabilitate them under Arts. 21 and 23.

Prelims Hooks

• Art. 17 (untouchability) and Art. 23 (forced labour) apply against private persons as well as the State. So does Art. 15(2), which covers access to shops, wells, tanks and ghats.
• Untouchability (Offences) Act 1955 → renamed the Protection of Civil Rights Act in 1976, with collective fines and special courts.
• PoA Act 1989, s.18: no anticipatory bail (s.438 CrPC). s.18A (2018 amendment): no preliminary enquiry before an FIR and no approval before arrest [5].
• Case sequence: Mahajan (20 March 2018) → 2018 Amendment Act (passed in August 2018) [4] → review recall (1 October 2019) → Prithvi Raj Chauhan (10 February 2020) upheld s.18A [7].
• 2015 amendment: tonsuring, garlanding with footwear and social or economic boycott became atrocities. It also created Exclusive Special Courts and a chapter on victims' and witnesses' rights.
• Manual Scavengers Act 2013: covers sewers and septic tanks. Hazardous cleaning under s.7 is punishable with up to 2 years or ₹2 lakh for a first offence and up to 5 years or ₹5 lakh for a repeat offence [6]. The 1993 Act covered only dry latrines.
• Compensation for sewer deaths: ₹10 lakh (Safai Karamchari Andolan, 2014) → ₹30 lakh (Dr Balram Singh, 20 October 2023) [2]. The 2023 order also set ₹20 lakh for permanent disability.
• NAMASTE = National Action for Mechanised Sanitation Ecosystem. It is run by MoSJE and MoHUA [3].
• PUDR (1982): paying below the minimum wage is forced labour under Art. 23. Bandhua Mukti Morcha (1984): bonded labour in quarries and brick kilns.

Mains Points

• Law vs social reality: Art. 17 and three generations of laws (1955, 1989, 2013) exist. Even so, NCERT's examples and NCRB's low conviction rates and high pendency show that untouchability continues through social pressure and weak enforcement. The answer lies in more Exclusive Special Courts, witness protection, and holding police responsible for lapses.
• Misuse vs protection debate (2018): Mahajan worried about false complaints and personal liberty under Art. 21. Parliament's s.18A, upheld in Prithvi Raj Chauhan (2020), put the protection of vulnerable victims first. It kept a narrow safety valve: anticipatory bail where there is no prima facie case. This is a useful example of the Court and Parliament balancing rights against each other.
• Manual scavenging as a definitional and technology problem: the official claim of "no manual scavenging deaths" sits alongside continuing sewer deaths [2]. Possible fixes:
• treat sewer work as covered by the 2013 Act;
• mechanise cleaning everywhere (NAMASTE) [3];
• pay the ₹30 lakh compensation on time;

• prosecute contractors under s.9 [6].

• Article 23 jurisprudence: PUDR widened "forced labour" to cover economic compulsion. This links the minimum wage, bonded labour and caste-based work into one fight for dignity under Arts. 21 and 23.