Bodhi Ramteke 
The establishment of a law serves not as an end but a means to enact justice through its vigorous enforcement. Without this crucial step, the rule of law stagnates, and the basis of legal protection, as well as social justice, crumbles. This picture gets evident in India where we witness the plights of the marginalised for justice in a society ruled by caste-varna privileged establishment.
The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989 (SC/ST (PoA) Act) was implemented as a legislative commitment to the Dalit and Adivasis. The act acknowledges the dehumanising indignities, humiliations, and offences faced by them, and also seeks to ensure their protection against caste-based atrocities and any form of social exclusion. It spans from the social relationships to the wider economic inequalities, primarily dealing with the violation defined by the provisions of the act and established precedent.
For such a powerful legislation, however, the act also runs the risks in implementation due to the inherent systemic inefficiencies and a lack of political will. As a result, the effective implementation became a challenge, resulting in a legal failure that betrays the idea of justice and equality for the most marginalised, who frequently become victims of institutionalised discrimination and violence in the caste system.
This failure, and an indifference of the state, is vividly seen in Maharashtra, where the authorities have gone to the extent of actively violating its provisions.
Also read: In Maharashtra, ‘Upper’ Caste Men Kill Youth Who Ensured Village Celebrated Ambedkar Jayanti
Recent data under Right to Information (RTI) Act on meetings of the ‘state level vigilance and monitoring committee’ has exposed Maharashtra’s reluctance in protecting SCs and STs, thereby bringing out the systemic gaps in addressing caste-based atrocities.
What went wrong with the SC/ST Act’s execution in Maharashtra?
According to Rule 16 of the SC/ST (PoA) Amendment Rules, 2016, a high-powered state level vigilance and monitoring committee is formed, consisting up to 25 members including key ministers, elected representatives (MP, MLA and MLCs) from SC and ST communities, senior officials and representatives of National Commissions for SCs and STs. It is chaired by the chief minister of the state and is required to meet at least twice a year to review the progress.
Information obtained under the RTI Act about the conduction of these meetings from 2018 to 2024 has revealed stark laxity. According to a response from the social justice department on December 30, 2024, the Maharashtra government has not convened a single meeting of the state-level vigilance and monitoring committee in the past six years. The last meeting was held on August 30, 2018.
Furthermore, in response to a starred question in the Lok Sabha regarding vigilance committee meetings, then-social justice minister Thawar Chand Gehlot in March 2020 presented data for 2016, 2017 and 2018.
The response revealed that Maharashtra had not conducted any state-level meetings in 2016 and 2017 either. Over the eight years when the committee was supposed to meet 16 times, it convened only one meeting.
The Maharashtra government has been led by two different coalitions in the last eight years – the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) under Uddhav Thackeray and the Mahayuti under Eknath Shinde. The latter’s chief minister, Eknath Shinde, also held the portfolio of the social justice department.
Despite this, lack of meetings underscores a profound systemic failure. But what is even more alarming is the reason cited for not conducting the meetings.
Are Dalits and Adivasis not a priority for Maharashtra?
The social justice department, as per the RTI reply, tried to arrange a time and date for the meetings with the chief minister, but there was no time available for them, and hence the meeting has been indefinitely pending.
The fact that this delay went on for 6 years indicates that the promises of welfare and rights of marginalised communities are nothing more than hollow assurances.
Also read: Parbhani Violence: Fadnavis Says Law Student Died Due to Health Condition Not Police Torture
Former IAS Officer E.Z. Khobragade, who sought this information under the RTI Act, said, “When it is mandated by law, how can the chief minister claim they don’t have time to conduct even a single meeting? Despite the increasing incidents of crimes, the state’s failure to convene meetings reflects the apathy of the state towards vulnerable communities.”
“Before the elections, the chief minister was seen attending events to promote schemes like the ‘Ladki Bahin Yojana’. They had time for such promotions but not for conducting these crucial meetings?” he asked.
Can a CM be prosecuted under the Act?
Under the SC/ST (PoA) Act, Section 4(2)(g) provides for punishment for “public servants” who willfully neglect their duties under the Act and its Rules. Specifically, it states that any “public servant” who is not a member of the SC/ST community, shall be punished for refusing to perform their duties under the Act.
In this case, the chief minister and other committee members, by neglecting the conduct of mandated meetings under the Act, have displayed a willful neglect of their constitutional duties. Their failure to ensure their occurrence, despite the statutory requirement, is deliberate inaction which makes them liable for prosecution.
Although a chief minister is not explicitly defined as a public servant under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – or its successor, the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) – the Supreme Court, in the landmark case of M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India (1979), affirmed that a minister or CM falls within the ambit of ‘public servant’, as defined under Section 21(12)(a) of the IPC, now codified in the corresponding section of the BNS.
The Supreme Court’s judgment elaborates:
By virtue of the provisions contained in Article 167 of the Constitution, the Chief Minister undoubtedly performs public duties as mandated by clauses (a) to (c) of Article 167. The Chief Minister and Ministers receive salaries and allowances from government funds, which are disbursed in lieu of the public duties they perform. As such, they are in the pay of the government and therefore qualify as public servants under the Penal Code.
It further clarifies that the salary they receive from the government treasury underscores their accountability to the public service they are appointed to deliver. The salary given to the chief minister is conterminous with the office and is not paid like constitutional functionaries such as the president and the speaker.
Even though a first information report (FIR) may not be easily registered against them, communities and advocates need to persist in filing formal complaints, as the law unequivocally supports such actions. These efforts can act as a mechanism to expose the authorities’ blatant neglect of duties and can create public awareness about their shortcomings.
It can create necessary pressure on officials to fulfil their responsibilities toward marginalised communities.
Atrocities against SCs and STs on the rise in Maharashtra
Violence against SC/STs has been on the rise in Maharashtra in the past few years. A recent incident in Parbhani, Maharashtra, whereby a combing operation was conducted in a Dalit locality resulting in the custodial death of a law student, reiterates the insensitivity of the state towards Dalits and the misuse of police power to target Dalits.
Families of victims like Somnath Suryawanshi, who was an Ambedkarite activist, are left to protest for justice against government bodies that are supposed to prevent these atrocities. It is the authorities’ institutional passivity and indifference that adds to these communities’ grievance and suffering.
This is not an isolated incident. In recent years, there have been several serious cases that highlight the need to strengthen the implementation mechanism of the SC/ST (PoA) Act.
In fact, the 2022 National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) report shows a rise in crimes against SC/STs across India, with 57,582 atrocities cases registered against the scheduled castes that year, representing a 13.1% jump from 50,900 cases in 2021.
In Maharashtra, the number of cases under the Act registered by persons from SC communities grew by over 38.96% from 2018 (1,947 cases) to 2022 (2,743 cases). It increased by 41% in the case of STs. Maharashtra has the fourth-highest number of reported cases.
According to a report by the Dalit Mahila Adhikar Manch of the National Campaign for Dalit Human Rights, Maharashtra also ranked fourth in case of crimes against Dalit women and minor girls from 2014 to 2019.
At the same time, the conviction rates for crimes against SCs and STs in Maharashtra are disturbingly low.
For SCs, the conviction rate in 2018 was just 8.8%, dropping to 7.2% in 2019, marginally increasing to 11.8% in 2020, again dropping to 10.7% in 2021 and 8.9% in 2022. As of the end of 2022, 14,504 cases involving crimes against SCs were pending trial.
For STs, the conviction rates were similarly poor – 11.3% in 2018, 11.9% in 2019, 12.5% in 2020, 11.8% in 2021 and 12.8% in 2022. At the end of 2022, 4,149 cases of crimes against STs were still awaiting trial.
P.S. Krishnan, who authored the SC/ST (PoA) Act, underscored the crucial role of state-level committees in the entire process. One of his writings referred to the notorious murder case of V. Shankar, a Dalit youth in Tamil Nadu in which the trial was over in one year and nine months.
He praised the amendment of the Act in 2015 that gave the law its teeth – with an appointment of a dedicated special public prosecutor – and enabled the speedy trial. However, he added, if high-powered vigilance and monitoring committees were formed and meetings were held regularly, justice could have been delivered even faster.
This highlights the critical role such committees play in ensuring justice for marginalised communities – an obligation that the state of Maharashtra has turned a blind eye to.
Bodhi Ramteke is a lawyer, researcher, and an Erasmus Mundus Human Rights Scholar currently pursuing a master’s degree across multiple universities in Europe and the UK.