Author: Manaswini Shetty, NIMS University, Rajasthan
To the Point
Caste discrimination, is a long-standing social problem which entails treating people differently according to their perceived social group or caste. It can be seen in many forms, such as social exclusion, discriminatory access to resources, and physical harm. Significant violations of social, cultural, political, economic, and civil rights may also be a part of it. Despite legislative protections, caste-based discrimination still occurs in modern-day India. In this article the legal framework, supporting evidences, and significant case laws pertaining to caste inequality are examined. It critically examines enforcement gaps and describes the state’s statutory responses and judicial interventions.
Abstract
In addition to the more obvious forms of social marginalization, caste-based discrimination now takes on more covert forms in the criminal justice system, workplace, housing, and educational institutions. Despite numerous attempts made by India’s legislature and judiciary to tackle caste inequality through severe laws and affirmative action, political, administrative, and social inertia have resulted in uneven enforcement. The everyday circumstances of Dalits and other marginalized communities demonstrate a lingering disconnect between legal theory and practice. Despite recent court rulings that have broadened the scope of protection by acknowledging intersectionality and structural oppression, caste-based discrimination is still a persistent issue in the society. This article seeks to address this gap by providing a critical analysis of legal provisions backed by factual information and significant court decisions in order to assess the actual level of advancement made in the eradication of caste-based discrimination in contemporary India.
Use of Legal Jargon
In order to eradicate discrimination based on caste, the Indian legal system offers a strong and effective constitutional and legislative framework. Every Indian citizen is guaranteed equality before the law and equal protection under the law by Article 14 of the constitution. This fundamental idea ensures that people are treated equally in the eyes of the law and forms the fundamental basis of anti-discriminatory jurisprudence. This framework is further reinforced by Article 15(1) of the Constitution, which specifically prohibits the State from discriminating towards any citizen on the grounds of race, faith, caste, sex, or the place of birth. This principle is further supported by Article 15(2), which forbids any restriction on access to public spaces like stores, eateries, lodging facilities, or venues for public entertainment on the basis of these grounds. It needs to be taken into consideration that, the State is allowed to adopt special provisions for women, children, and socially and educationally disadvantaged groups, such as Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes, under Articles 15(3) and 15(4). These provisions serve as the foundation for India’s affirmative action and reservation policies under the constitution.
Similar grounds to those listed in Article 15 are prohibited by Article 16 of the Constitution, addressing equality of opportunities in matters pertaining to public employment. Nevertheless, Article 16 Clause 4 gives the State the authority to reserve appointments or positions for any underrepresented class of citizens that the State deems to be neglected in its services. The legal justification for reservations in public employment is provided by this clause. Article 17, criminalizes “untouchability” and prohibits its practice in any way, and is also the most direct legal intervention against caste-based discrimination in modern India. It states that enforcing any disability resulting from untouchability is illegal and is subject to legal penalties. This article imposes an explicit duty on a State to prosecute violators, going beyond simple prohibition. The State is also required by Article 46 of the Constitution, which is a part of Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), to safeguard the weaker groups—especially SCs and STs—from social injustice and all forms of exploitation, as well as to advance their financial and educational interests with particular attention. A number of laws have been passed to put into effect these mandates in addition to the constitutional provisions. The first significant piece of legislation passed to implement Article 17 was The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (which was previously referred to as the Untouchability (Offences) Act 1955). Any act that prevents someone from accessing stores, eateries, public areas, or other amenities on the basis of untouchability is illegal.
However, The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, a more comprehensive statute, was introduced due to limitations in scope and implementation. This Act outlines procedures for victim protection, the appointment of Exclusive Special Public Prosecutors, and the creation of Special Courts for a speedy trial. It is also responsible for prevention of offences against them, and offers relief and rehabilitation to victims. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 contains provisions pertaining to caste-based discrimination in addition to these particular laws. Acts that intentionally offend religious or cultural values of any class are prohibited by Sections 153A and 295A, as are acts that foster animosity between groups based on caste, race, faith, place of birth, ethnicity, place of residence, language, or other factors. These clauses are frequently brought up in situations that involve hate speech or divisive discriminatory discourse. The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, which designates particular castes as Scheduled Castes for every state and union territory, regulates the identification of castes eligible for constitutional protection. The SC/ST PoA Act and associated laws provide legal repercussions for any discrimination against members of these castes.
India’s commitment to ending caste-based discrimination is reflected in this framework of statutory laws and constitutional provisions. That said, unless these laws are accompanied by strong enforcement, legal knowledge, and judicial awareness to the actualities of caste oppression, their mere existence is insufficient.
The Proof
Official statistics and independent studies show that caste-based discrimination is still a common occurrence in India in spite of constitutional guarantees and legal protections. In 2023 alone, more than 50,000 cases were filed under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, according to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). States such as Rajasthan, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Utter Pradesh report the highest rates of these, which include serious crimes like murder, rape, assault, and social boycotts. Nearly 27% of households report engaging in untouchability, according to the National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5) and the Indian Human Development Survey also known as (IHDS). This is especially true in rural areas and states like Uttarakhand and Rajasthan. In the field of education, instances that highlight the discrimination and prejudice against Dalits in educational institutions.
Research from the Indian Institute of Dalit Studies also supports employment-related bias, showing that Dalit and Muslims had the same qualifications but were much less likely to be invited for job interviews. In addition, caste discrimination in housing still exists, and Dalit communities continue to engage in manual scavenging despite it being illegal. Together, these findings show that prejudice due to caste is a persistent and deeply ingrained social injustice in contemporary India rather than a thing of the past.
Case Laws
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)
The Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of OBC reservations in public service under the Article 16 (4) of the Constitution in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992). The Court acknowledged that implementing positive action is a valid means of tackling social and historical disadvantages and that equal treatment must be substantive rather than merely formal. To guarantee that positive action reaches those who are truly disadvantaged. It imposed two important restrictions like reservations should not account for more than 50% of all vacancies, and the “creamy layer,” or the most economically affluent OBCs, should not be eligible for reservation benefits.
Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra (2018)
The Supreme Court of India addressed issues regarding the abuse of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in the case of Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra (2018). The court’s orders, which included requiring preliminary investigations and authorities’ approvals prior to arrests, effectively made it more challenging to file FIRs and carry out arrests under the Act. Following a review and overturn of these directives, the Act was modified, sparking demonstrations and legal challenges.
K. Krishna Murthy v. Union of India (2010)
The Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of reservation for the SCs, STs, and the OBCs in local self-governing institutions under Articles 243D and 243T in K. Krishna Murthy v. Union of India (2010). The Court acknowledged the necessity of including political representation at the local level and maintaining the constitutionality of such reservations. It did, however, make clear that reservations cannot be applied automatically and must be informed by concrete or empirical evidence. By highlighting the need to strike a balance between social equality and democratic fairness, the ruling made sure that the political empowerment of underprivileged groups is supported by facts and the constitution.
Conclusion
Caste-based discrimination still exists in contemporary India despite the country’s robust constitutional mandate and extensive legal system. The Constitution’s tenets of justice, equality, and fraternity are compromised by the continuation of such practices. Legal provisions such as the SC/ST PoA Act have given marginalized groups some degree of power, but their implementation is uneven and frequently hindered by institutional indifference and social prejudices. Social justice has occasionally benefited from judicial interpretation; however, turning de jure equality into de facto equality is a difficult task. Until caste-based discrimination is eliminated from both the legal system and the general public’s perception, India’s goal of universal development and democratic integrity will continue be unfulfilled. To dismantle the deeply ingrained caste system, we urgently need legal education, proactive governance, fast-track courts, and structural reforms. Legal activism, administrative responsibility, and social awakening must be the way forward.
FAQS
Is discrimination based on caste still illegal in India?
Yes. A number of laws, including the Protection of Civil Rights Act of 1955, the SC/ST PoA Act of 1989, and also Articles 15 and 17 of the Constitution, make caste-based discrimination illegal.
Does a Dalit who is facing discrimination have immediate solutions or remedies?
The victim has various solutions like:
Contact the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) and file a formal complaint under the SC/ST PoA Act.
Contact the Supreme Court or a High Court to seek protection under Articles 32 or 226.
Request legal aid from the District Legal Services Authorities.
Does the SC/ST Act allow for instantaneous arrest?
Yes. The SC/ST Act no longer requires prior approval for arrests following the 2019 Supreme Court review ruling. If there is a prima facie case, the police must take immediate action.
Is caste a legitimate reason to refuse someone a job or a place to live?
Definitely not. According to the SC/ST PoA Act and the Protection of Civil Rights Act, such acts are unlawful and go against the guarantees of equality outlined in the constitution.
