Caste Discrimination against India's “Untouchables” - Human Rights ...

Atrocities Act, 1989. 83 Similarly, the Government of India reported that in the same year that
no cases were registered under the Protection of Civil Rights Act in 24 states and union
territories. 84 The National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes has
concluded that “a large number of cases of atrocities go unregistered, mainly because of
reluctance on the part of police officers to register the cases.” 85 The NHRC has confirmed
that the lack of registered cases does not represent an actual reduction in the practice of
“untouchability.” 86
In addition to non-registration of cases, police routinely engage in improper registration of
cases. Dalit cases are often generally registered under the Indian Penal Code, instead of the
Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and the Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989. 87 Moreover, in
a distorted interpretation of the Prevention of Atrocities Act, police officials require explicit
mention of abuse by caste name for all atrocities. 88
Improper and under-registration of Dalit cases adversely affects case outcomes. 89 Cases are
less likely to be prosecuted and even when pursued, are more likely to result in acquittal
when the police have failed to collect evidence. Perpetrators, if convicted, are punished
with a lesser sentence, and/or are likely to be released on bail. 90 Further, the appropriate
relief may not be available when the proper sections of the law are not cited. 91 More broadly,
these problems have caused a loss of faith in law enforcement, which further diminishes
the number of cases registered. 92
83
Annual Report On The Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 For The Year 2002 (Nineteenth
Report) Government Of India, Ministry Of Social Justice And Empowerment, New Delhi, p. 4-5. http://socialjustice.nic.in/schedule/arpoa.pdf
(accessed February 7, 2007).
84
Annual Report On The Protection Of Civil Rights Act, 1955 For The Year 2002 (Twenty Second Report) Government Of India, Ministry Of
Social Justice And Empowerment, New Delhi, p. 2 http://socialjustice.nic.in/schedule/ar-pcr.pdf (accessed February 7, 2007).
85
National Commission on Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Sixth Report, 1999-2000 & 2000-2001, New Delhi, p. xii, cited in
NCDHR Response to the Special Rapporteur’s Questionnaire, p. 4.
86
NHRC Report, Section IV, p. 25 (referring to the lack of registered cases under the Protection of Civil Rights Act).
87
NCDHR Response to the Special Rapporteur’s Questionnaire, p. 4; NHRC Report, Section IV, p. 45 (citing Information gathered from the
Senior Research Officer, National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes).
88
NHRC Report, Section VI, p. 118.
89
There are numerous points in the processing of a complaint at which the police can improperly affect the case outcome. These include
not registering the case; pressuring the complainant to compromise; lodging false counter charges against victims; refusing to register
cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 or not citing the proper sections of the Act;
registering the First Information Report (FIR) but not arresting the accused; assigning a lower ranked police officer against the specific
stipulation of Rule 7(1); delaying the investigation and filing of a charge sheet; and the granting of bail in contravention to stringent Act
requirements. NHRC Report, Section VI, p. 117 (citing National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights, Chennai Hearing).
90
Ibid., p. 117.
91
Ibid., p. 117.
92
Ibid., Section IV, p. 25.
34