The pendency of cases related to untouchability in India, particularly under the Protection of Civil Rights Act (PCR Act), 1955, remains a significant issue, with over 97% of cases pending in courts as per the Union government’s 2022 annual report. Below is a detailed overview based on available information:

1. High Pendency Rate:
   • According to the 2022 annual report by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, 97% of casesregistered under the PCR Act for offenses related to untouchability remain pending in courts. This indicates a severe backlog in the judicial system for such cases.
   • In 2022, 1,242 caseswere pending trial under the PCR Act, highlighting the scale of the issue.
2. Low Conviction Rates:
   • Of the 31 cases disposed of in 2022, only one resulted in a conviction, while the remaining 30 ended in acquittals. This reflects a conviction rate of approximately 2%, indicating challenges in securing convictions.
   • Historical data shows a similar trend, with all 37 cases disposed of between 2019 and 2021resulting in acquittals.
3. Decline in Case Registration:
   • The number of cases registered under the PCR Act has been declining, particularly since the enactment of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (PoA Act), which addresses broader forms of caste-based violence and discrimination. In 2022, fewer cases were filed under the PCR Act compared to the PoA Act, which saw 62,501 cases
4. Comparison with PoA Act:
   • The PoA Act, which addresses atrocities against Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), also faces significant pendency, with over 17,000 cases pending with policeand over 2.33 lakh cases pending in courts across India in 2022.
   • The conviction rate under the PoA Act is slightly higher but still low, hovering around 25-30%, compared to the overall conviction rate for Indian Penal Code (IPC) crimes.
5. Implementation Challenges:
   • Non-registration of FIRs: Victims often face resistance from police when attempting to register complaints under the PCR Act or PoA Act.
   • Delays in Investigation: Slow investigations lead to loss of evidence and witness intimidation, further delaying justice.
   • Lack of Awareness: Many victims are unaware of their rights under these laws, limiting their ability to seek justice.
   • Caste Bias in Institutions: Prejudices within police and judicial systems hamper effective enforcement.
   • Fear of Reprisals: Victims often fear social boycotts or further violence, deterring them from pursuing legal action.
   • Focus on Ritual Aspects: The PCR Act primarily addresses ritualistic aspects of untouchability (e.g., denial of access to temples or water sources) rather than systemic discrimination, limiting its scope.
6. Legal Framework:
   • Article 17 of the Indian Constitutionabolishes untouchability and prohibits its practice in any form, making it a punishable offense.
   • The PCR Act, 1955(originally the Untouchability Offences Act) prescribes punishments (1-2 years imprisonment and fines) for offenses like preventing access to public places, worship sites, or services due to untouchability.
   • The PoA Act, 1989was enacted to address broader atrocities, including violence and discrimination, with stricter penalties and provisions for special courts to expedite trials. However, pendency persists due to inadequate enforcement.
7. Judicial Observations:
   • The Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu Ingale (1992)emphasized that untouchability is a crime against the Constitution and humanity, highlighting its persistence as an indirect form of slavery.
   • The Madras High Court recently ruled that denying temple festival donations based on caste amounts to untouchability, reinforcing the application of Article 17.
   • Courts have clarified that untouchability refers to social disabilities imposed due to caste, not mere social boycotts or exclusion from religious services.
8. Social Context:
   • Despite constitutional and legal measures, untouchability persists, particularly in rural areas, where Dalits face discrimination in access to public resources, temples, and social interactions.
   • Studies, such as one in Gujarat, show that 4% of surveyed villagesprohibit inter-caste marriages, and Dalits face restrictions in housing, water access, and religious participation.
   • The persistence of untouchability is attributed to deep-rooted caste beliefs, inadequate enforcement, and societal resistance to change.

Reasons for High Pendency:

• Judicial Backlog: The sheer volume of cases and limited special courts contribute to delays.
• Weak Prosecution: Procedural loopholes and insufficient evidence often lead to acquittals.
• Societal Barriers: Caste biases within institutions and fear of retaliation discourage victims from pursuing cases.
• Under-reporting: Many cases go unreported due to social stigma and lack of awareness, masking the true extent of the issue.

Measures to Address Pendency:

• Strengthening Enforcement: Ensuring prompt registration of FIRs and faster investigations.
• Special Courts: Increasing the number of special courts and ensuring they function effectively to reduce backlog.
• Legal Aid and Awareness: Providing legal aid and educating marginalized communities about their rights.
• Addressing Systemic Bias: Training police and judicial officers to eliminate caste prejudices.
• Incentives for Compliance: Promoting inter-caste marriages and social integration through incentives.

Conclusion:

The pendency of untouchability cases under the PCR Act remains alarmingly high at over 97%, with low conviction rates and systemic challenges hindering justice. While the PCR Act and PoA Act provide a robust legal framework, their effectiveness is limited by enforcement issues, societal biases, and judicial delays. Addressing these requires stronger institutional mechanisms, awareness campaigns, and societal efforts to eradicate caste-based discrimination.