Why SC-ST Act, other special laws are ineffective

Opponents of the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, have correctly highlighted the lethal flaws of this legal provision. However, a more fundamental question has not been asked: do we need legal provisions specifically intended to benefit a section of population in the first place?

Before answering this question, let’s survey special laws. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (which became Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA), 2005, had noble intentions. The former came into being to safeguard women against the social evil of dowry, and the latter from abuse by husbands and in-laws.

But the unintended consequences have been dismaying. As the Supreme Court observed in September 2024, both provisions are among the most abused laws in the country. A bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, and Justice K.V. Vishwanathan, made this observation during a hearing on a matrimonial dispute related to maintenance. “In such matters, getting freedom is the best thing,” said Justice Gavai, referring to an earlier case where a man was ordered to pay Rs 50 lakh to his estranged wife despite the fact that the couple had never lived together.

“In Nagpur, I had seen a case where a boy went to the US, and for an unconsummated marriage, he had to pay Rs 50 lakh. Not even a single day of living together, and that’s the arrangement. I have openly said Domestic Violence, 498A is among the most abused provisions. My brothers may agree,” Justice Gavai stated.

It was not the first time the higher judiciary had made such remarks. In August 2024, the Bombay High Court, in May 2023 the Kerala High Court, and in July 2023 the Jharkhand High Court made similar observations.

The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is another law aimed at benefiting a section of population. In March 2018, the Supreme Court pointed out that this law had become an instrument to “blackmail” innocent citizens and public servants. Accordingly, it tried to dilute the stringent provisions of the Dalit protection law. However, the Modi government disregarded the sagacious counsel of the apex court and brought a Constitutional Amendment to perpetuate the iniquities of the SC-ST Act, perhaps to appease some Ambedkarite-Mandalite groups.

The simple answer to the question we asked is: No, we don’t need legal provisions specifically intended to benefit a section of population. For three reasons. First, such laws divide society in opposing groups (whose identity is determined by the accident of birth), one of which is potentially the perpetrator and other victim—in perpetuity. So does that mean only women and Dalits can only be victims, and men and upper caste people perpetrators? This division, implicit in the letter and spirit of such laws, militates against the grain of modern jurisprudence which penalizes individuals, not groups.

This division, implicit in the letter and spirit of such laws, militates against the grain of modern jurisprudence which penalizes individuals, not groups. A natural corollary is the perpetuation of social divisions. There is no justification to support group-oriented jurisprudence in a country governed by the Enlightened principles of liberty, equality, and fairness.

Second, justice and fairness can only be promoted in a systemic, and not a partial, manner. This promotion is akin to getting the human body in good shape. Any good gym trainer will tell you that ‘spot reduction’—that is, doing exercises targeting specific parts like stomach—is a myth. Physical workout, healthier lifestyle, good diet, etc., are the prerequisites of good health and better shape; effort should be systemic; and the results will be comprehensive—not just flatten tummy but also improve other individual health indicators like blood pressure and blood sugar.

Similarly, it is not possible to make the police and judicial systems just and fair only for one section of society. When a certain city or state has a good law-and-order situation, it is good for people of all castes, communities, and sexes. And when it is bad, it is bad for all sections. An illustration: Lalu Prasad Yadav’s Bihar was supposedly the paradise of social justice, but it saw the exodus of people of all castes and classes because of lawlessness.

Third, decades after the special laws came into effect, atrocities still continue against SCs, STs, and women. The reason: the absence of special laws was never the cause of injustice; the real problem was the implementation of the existing laws. For instance, almost all violations mentioned in the SC-ST Act were covered in the IPC; it was just that our cops and courts were, and are, not sensitive and/or effective enough to address the concerns of SCs and STs who are generally at the bottom of the socio-economic pyramid.

This brings us to the question: how to end or minimize discrimination? The answer is again simple: reforms in all walks of life, especially in society and the police and judicial systems. The problem is systemic, so should be the solution. Special laws are not only ineffective but also immoral.

END OF ARTICLE