On June 17, 2025 the Centre for Law and Policy Research organized a “Know Your Rights and Entitlements Session” with a focus on the Prevention of Atrocities Act of 1989. This event took place at the Patrakarthara Bhavana in Kolar and aimed to educate paralegal volunteers, activists, and individuals from the SC/ST community about the law’s provisions, the challenges in its implementation, and its vital role in protecting the rights of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe victims of caste-based violence. The agenda for the day was structured into two main sessions: the first session covered essential definitions and key provisions of the Act, while the second session delved into the difficulties faced in implementing the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
Session 1 commenced with a symbolic tribute to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, establishing a foundational context for a day centered on constitutional rights and social justice. Mr. Sivamanithan S, Assistant Professor at Alliance University, emphasized the philosophical underpinnings of the Act, drawing connections to the works of Dr. Ambedkar and Periyar, as well as the efforts of the Dravidian movement aimed at the annihilation of caste. The significance of the constitutional guarantee of equality as articulated in Article 17 was underscored, along with a detailed explanation of the intent behind statutes such as the Untouchability (Offenses) Act. Additionally, the session included discussions on specific instances of violence against Dalit individuals in notable cases from Kolar. Participants were urged to recognize the critical role of fact-finding committees and the importance of accurate reporting, with examples drawn from Mandya and other relevant locations.
During the session, all participants, specifically the paralegal volunteers, were introduced to the specific provisions and challenges associated with the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989. The legal definitions provided within the Act, particularly regarding the term “atrocity,” were examined, including aspects beyond the concept of untouchability. Additionally, a distinction was made between various forms of degrading acts, land encroachments, and systemic violence. The discussion incorporated the scope of the Act alongside an explanation of the critical need for such measures, particularly in the state of Karnataka.
The speaker notably highlighted that, despite the existing legal framework, conviction rates remain exceedingly low. Specifically in Karnataka, out of 2,633 registered cases, only 1,027 have resulted in convictions, which are significantly below the national average. Bureaucratic impediments further hinder the pursuit of justice, leading to a considerable number of First Information Reports (FIRs) not being filed. Victims and complainants frequently encounter backlash when attempting to escalate cases to higher authorities. Even in instances where FIRs are filed, the rate of conversion to charge sheets remains low, and the likelihood of securing a conviction diminishes during the prosecution phase.
The next session delivered by Ms. Yashoda, a member of the SC/ST Monitoring and Strengthening Committee in Karnataka, focused on the systemic and procedural challenges associated with the implementation of the Act. A significant concern raised was the difficulties encountered in filing First Information Reports (FIRs), particularly in rural regions. There exists a pervasive lack of awareness and training among community members and activists regarding the formulation of effective legal complaints. Additionally, public prosecutors and investigating officers often exhibit reluctance to act in a timely manner. The increasing prevalence of counter-cases, where alleged perpetrators file retaliatory complaints to diminish the credibility of the original case, was identified as a considerable obstacle. Furthermore, district-level monitoring committees frequently neglect to convene or submit the requisite reports as stipulated under Rule 17. The absence of consistent awareness programs coupled with inadequate record-keeping substantially undermines the enforcement of the Act.
Several key provisions of the Act were also discussed. Section 4, which deals with the negligence of duty by public officials, allows for penalties including dismissal or legal action. Special courts under the Act have the authority to issue eviction orders, which can remove individuals likely to commit offenses from SC/ST localities for up to three years. The Act also mandates the appointment of special public prosecutors and the setting up of dedicated courts to expedite proceedings and provide protection to victims, although these mechanisms are often underutilized. Another important provision is the presumption clause, which states that if the accused personally knew the victim, it is presumed that they were aware of the victim’s caste or tribal status.
To strengthen the implementation of the Act, participants were encouraged to adopt several advocacy strategies. These include actively monitoring and enforcing district collector (DC) and chief minister (CM) committee meetings, integrating provisions like Section 4 into litigation strategies to hold negligent officials accountable, and documenting and escalating cases of counter-complaints. The importance of conducting fact-finding missions and publishing detailed reports, especially for cases that go unreported in mainstream media, was emphasized. Finally, participants were urged to propose amendments and push for better enforcement of the Act through formal committee structures and policy channels.
The session wrapped up with a motivating call to action from Yashoda and Dr. Netravathi, a Paralegal Volunteer. They urged the PLVs to engage more actively with the law’s provisions, acknowledging its significant potential. They emphasized the importance of improving documentation and holding authorities accountable. The discussion also focused on ways to maximize justice and legal redress through the act, despite existing flaws in the legal system.
