A 13-Year Neglect: How Successive Rajasthan Governments Violated the SC/ST Act

Scoop: RTI data shows Rajasthan's SC/ST Vigilance Committee met just twice in 13 years, despite a biannual mandate.

Fresh data tabled by the Government of India in the Parliament details how crimes against the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) saw a sharp increase across the country between 2018 and 2022.

(Photo: The Quint)

(If you want us to do more such investigative stories on administrative negligence, please become a member and support our work.)

In a violation of the landmark Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, a State Level Vigilance and Monitoring Committee in Rajasthan, mandated to meet twice a year, has convened only two meetings since 2010, data obtained by The Quint under the Right to Information (RTI) Act has revealed.

Rule 16 of the SC/ST Act tasks this Committee, chaired by the Chief Minister of a state, to review the implementation of the provisions of the Prevention of Atrocities Act.

These RTI findings coincide with fresh data tabled by the Government of India in the Parliament which details how crimes against the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) saw a sharp increase across the country between 2018 and 2022.

While in Rajasthan, specifically, the cases of atrocities against both these marginalised communities doubled in this time span, going from 4,607 in 2018 to 8,752 in 2022, states such as Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh led the charts on crimes against SC and ST communities during this period.

As per RTI data, the first meeting of the State Level Vigilance and Monitoring Committee in Rajasthan was held on 16 February 2010 and the second meeting took place on 8 August 2023 — after a gap of 13 years.

Senior Congress leader Ashok Gehlot was the Chief Minister on both occasions.

RTI requests filed with the governments in others states such UP, MP, and Odisha — which also recorded high cases of atrocities against SCs and STs — remained unanswered till the time of writing this report.

SC/ST Act and Role of The Vigilance and Monitoring Committee

The SC/ST Act was enacted by the Parliament of India on 11 September 1989 and its rules were notified on 31 March 1995. Rules 16 and 17 of the Act lay grounds for the constitution of State and District level Vigilance and Monitoring Committees.

The Committee, consisting of not more than 25 members, is chaired by the Chief Minister of a state.

Other members include: Home Minister, Finance Minister, Welfare Minister, elected Members of Parliament (MPs) and State Legislative Assembly (MLAs) belonging to SC and ST communities, Chief Secretary, Home Secretary, Director General of Police (DGP), and the Director of the National Commission for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

(Source: Ministry of Tribal Affairs)

The rules further mandate: "The high power vigilance and monitoring committee shall meet at least twice in a calendar year, in the month of January and July to review the implementation of the provisions of the Act, relief and rehabilitation facilities provided to the victims and other matters connected therewith, prosecution of cases under the Act, role of different officers/agencies responsible for implementing the provisions of the Act and various reports received by the State Government."

Rajasthan-based social activist Bhanwar Meghwanshi said that these findings show how the government is not serious about the implementations of the Atrocities Act.

"This is just the tip of the iceberg. Neither the government nor the administration, including Police, is serious about implementation of the Atrocities Act. In most cases, if you speak to investigating officers, you'd know how every probe starts from a point where the cops believe that the case is false and Dalits are misusing the Act," Meghwanshi told The Quint.

He added: "The Act lays down a framework to make Dalits and Tribals aware of their rights. It mandates those in power to spread awareness among people. But successive state governments have failed to do so. And when meetings like these don't happen, there is no scope for accountability and reflection."

'Clear Case of Contempt'

Ideally, since notification of the rules in March 1995, the Committee should have convened 59 times as opposed to the two times it actually met.

In 2015, responding to a petition filed by the Centre for Dalit Rights, the Rajasthan High Court directed the state government to "constitute District and the State Level Vigilance and Monitoring Committee in accordance with Rules 17 and 16 of the Rules of 1995."

Speaking to The Quint, Satish Kumar, Director of the Centre for Dalit Rights in Rajasthan, pointed that the failure of the Rajasthan government to hold regular meetings of the vigilance and monitoring committee is in direct contempt of the court.

"Responding to our petition in 2015, the High Court asked the government to constitute this committee if it hadn't already done so. The government, hence, is in direct violation of the court order," Kumar said.

Caste Crimes in Rajasthan

Cases of caste atrocities in Rajasthan regularly make headlines.

In 2022, Indra Meghwal, a nine-year-old Dalit boy from Jalore died after being allegedly hit by his teacher over drinking water from a pot used only by upper castes in the school. In the same year, 28-year-old Jitendra Meghwal was stabbed in Pali district allegedly over sporting a moustache. Kartik Bhil, an Adivasi activist from Siroha district died a few days after he was brutally assaulted allegedly by men hired by a local MLA.

As per data by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), the rate of crime against SCs and STs in Rajasthan has seen a steady increase between 2018-2022. Crime rate refers to number of crimes per one lakh population.

In the case of SCs, while crime rate went up from 37.7 in 2018 to 71.6 in 2022, the conviction rate dropped from 43.6 percent in 2018 to 39.5 percent in 2022.

The crime rate, in cases related to atrocities against STs, spiked from 11.9 in 2018 to 27.3 in 2022. In the same period, the charge sheeting rate remained low with a charge-sheet being registered in only close to 50 percent cases. The conviction rate despite rising steadily, remained low.