Key Details
The Department of Social Justice and Empowerment’s Report under Section 15A(4) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 for 2024 records police and court action on offences arising from the practice of untouchability.
Indicator | Position in 2024 |
|---|---|
New cases registered | 18 |
States reporting new cases | 6 of 36 States/UTs |
Cases with police, including earlier cases | 56 |
Cases charge-sheeted | 10 |
Cases pending police investigation | 44 |
Cases before courts, including earlier cases | 975 |
Cases decided by courts | 15 |
Cases ending in conviction | 0 |
Cases pending before courts | 960 |
The report also records ₹495.29 crore in central assistance during 2024-25 under a combined scheme supporting implementation of both the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Few New Cases Were Recorded Across the Country
Only 18 cases were registered under the Protection of Civil Rights Act during 2024: 13 involving Scheduled Castes and five involving Scheduled Tribes. Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka recorded five each, Himachal Pradesh three, Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh two each, and Telangana one.
The remaining 30 States and Union Territories reported no new cases under the Act. These figures measure cases registered under this particular law; they do not establish the prevalence—or absence—of untouchability. Complaints may go unreported, be recorded under other laws or fail to enter the criminal-justice system.
Most Police Investigations Remained Incomplete
Police handled 56 cases, including those carried forward from previous years. Ten were charge-sheeted, two resulted in final reports and 44 remained under investigation at the end of 2024.
The position differed sharply by category:
Of 48 cases involving Scheduled Castes, five were charge-sheeted and 41 remained under investigation.
Of eight cases involving Scheduled Tribes, five were charge-sheeted and three remained under investigation.
The low overall movement from registration to charge sheet shows that the enforcement question is not confined to whether cases are recorded; it also concerns whether investigations progress in time.
Court Disposal Was Limited and Produced No Convictions
Courts had 975 cases, including those carried forward from earlier years. Only 15 cases—13 involving Scheduled Castes and two involving Scheduled Tribes—were decided. All ended in acquittal, leaving 960 cases pending.
Consequently, the report records court pendency of approximately 98.5% for 2024. This is the clearest institutional finding in the report: the stock of unresolved cases vastly exceeded both new registrations and annual disposal.
The data do not explain why the cases ended in acquittal. The report provides no assessment of evidentiary quality, witness support, prosecutorial performance or the age of pending cases.
Implementation Extends Beyond Police and Courts
Section 15A of the Protection of Civil Rights Act places responsibility on governments to provide legal aid, appoint supervisory officers, establish Special Courts and committees, identify untouchability-prone areas and periodically review implementation.
Central assistance under the combined civil-rights and atrocities-prevention scheme supports SC/ST Protection Cells, Special Police Stations, Exclusive Special Courts, victim relief and rehabilitation, awareness programmes and incentives for inter-caste marriages. Since the funding covers two laws together, the reported ₹495.29 crore cannot be treated as expenditure on the Protection of Civil Rights Act alone.
The report also states that the National Helpline Against Atrocities—14566 was available nationwide, but State-level call centres had been integrated with the central system in only 13 States and Union Territories by the end of 2024.
What Is the Protection of Civil Rights Act?
The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 gives effect to Article 17 of the Constitution, which abolishes untouchability. It criminalises disabilities imposed on this ground, including denial of entry to places of worship, shops, restaurants, hospitals and educational institutions; refusal to sell goods or provide services; and compelling a person to undertake certain forms of degrading work.
Policy Relevance
The report is important as a test of whether the enforcement system can identify, investigate and adjudicate prohibited conduct.
Registration needs scrutiny: Zero cases across 30 jurisdictions cannot, by itself, demonstrate zero violations. State reviews need to examine whether incidents are being reported, registered under the appropriate law or diverted into other complaint systems.
Pendency requires case-level diagnosis: Aggregate figures reveal the blockage but not its causes. The age of cases, investigation delays, charge-sheet quality, witness protection and reasons for acquittal are necessary to determine where enforcement is failing.
Spending needs clearer attribution: Because central assistance combines the Protection of Civil Rights Act and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the report does not show how much funding supported each law or what enforcement outcomes it produced.
Reporting remains activity-oriented: Much of the State-level material describes committees, schemes and administrative arrangements. Comparable evidence on complaints, investigation time, trials, victim support and outcomes would give Parliament and policymakers a clearer view of implementation.
Follow the Full Report Here: Report on Implementation of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 for the Calendar Year 2024 — Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment