Context:

The Protection of Civil Rights (PCR) Act, 1955, a legislative tool to eliminate untouchability as mandated under Article 17 of the Indian Constitution, remains grossly under-implemented. The 2022 report by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment paints a dismal picture of enforcement, revealing structural deficiencies in India's pursuit of social justice, cultural preservation, and inclusive development.

Despite the Act’s objective of eradicating untouchability—manifested in denial of access to public spaces, religious institutions, and essential services—there has been a sharp decline in First Information Reports (FIRs) over the years. Only 13 cases were registered in 2022, compared to 24 in 2021 and 25 in 2020. Alarmingly, no State or Union Territory has declared any area as “untouchability-prone,” raising concerns over administrative apathy and underreporting.

The judicial and police response has been equally lackluster. Out of 1,242 cases pending trial under the PCR Act in 2022, over 97% remain unresolved. Out of 31 cases disposed that year, 30 ended in acquittal, with only one conviction, reflecting a near-total failure in ensuring accountability. Similarly, of the 51 cases pending with police, chargesheets were filed in just 12. This highlights serious procedural and evidentiary lapses, lack of capacity, and perhaps, implicit biases in law enforcement and judicial systems.

In contrast, cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (PoA Act) have shown an increasing trend, suggesting better awareness and enforcement. This disparity calls for equal policy attention to the PCR Act, especially considering its centrality in upholding the constitutional promise of equality and dignity.

What makes the findings even more concerning is their impact on India’s cultural and linguistic diversity. Many communities that are victims of untouchability also belong to linguistic or tribal minorities. These include speakers of endangered languages, regional dialects, and culturally distinct groups. The systemic neglect of untouchability cases undermines not just civil rights but also the preservation of traditional knowledge systems, oral histories, and linguistic secularism enshrined in Article 29 of the Constitution.

The absence of proactive policy measures—such as identification of vulnerable zones, awareness programs, legal aid, or cultural inclusion initiatives—threatens the composite culture of the nation. Moreover, the decline in registration indicates a lack of trust in legal redressal mechanisms and failure to empower marginalized communities through effective grievance redressal.

To address these challenges, a multi-pronged strategy is essential. This includes:

• Strengthening special courts and fast-tracking trials under the PCR Act.
• Capacity-building and sensitization programs for police and judiciary.
• Empowering local governance institutions to report and act on untouchability practices.
• Implementing UNESCO-backed initiatives to preserve linguistic heritage.
• Introducing language training and interpretation services to reduce communication gaps.
• Leveraging multilingual education policies to integrate cognitive development with cultural preservation.

In conclusion, the declining efficacy of the PCR Act undermines India's constitutional ethos of equality, fraternity, and cultural integration. A robust, inclusive, and culturally sensitive legal framework is imperative to protect the rights of the marginalized and to uphold the pluralistic spirit of the Indian nation.