Our Positions
These are NCGC's own positions. Every one of them is contested, other organisations argue the opposite in good faith, and each is a matter for Parliament and the courts rather than something we can assert as settled. We have set out the case against each position alongside our own, because an argument that cannot survive being stated fairly is not worth making.
What we are not asking for
It is worth being explicit about this before anything else, because our positions are routinely misdescribed.
- We do not seek repeal of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
- We do not seek dilution of the offences in Section 3. Caste-based violence and humiliation should be punished, and punished seriously.
- We do not campaign against the constitutional scheme of reservation.
- We do not organise agitation, boycotts or protest against any community. We make our arguments in writing, to the institutions that can act on them.
1. Time-bound trials
What we ask. That Special Courts and Exclusive Special Courts be staffed, funded and monitored so that trials finish within the period the Act itself contemplates, and that pendency figures be published court by court.
Why. A trial that runs for eight years serves nobody. The complainant waits years for a finding. The accused lives under the case for the same years, whatever the eventual verdict. Delay is the single largest cause of injury on both sides of these matters, and it is the one problem where nobody has to lose for the other to gain.
The case against. There is not much of one. The disagreement is about resources and priorities rather than principle, and about whether courts dedicated to one statute are the best use of scarce judicial capacity.
2. Judicial scrutiny before arrest where the FIR discloses a pre-existing dispute
What we ask. That where an FIR on its face arises out of a running dispute over land, wages, tenancy, employment or a domestic matter, a magistrate apply their mind before arrest rather than after it.
Why. The Supreme Court has held that caste-based intent is an essential ingredient of the offence, not an assumption, and that the "public view" requirement in Section 3(1)(r) is a real requirement. Where the FIR discloses no caste element at all, arrest imposes a serious cost before anyone has asked whether the Act applies.
The case against. This is close to what the Supreme Court directed in Subhash Kashinath Mahajan in 2018, and Parliament deliberately undid it months later by inserting Section 18A. The reason given was that a screening step hands the police a mechanism to bury genuine complaints, and that people who face caste violence are frequently poor, frequently dependent on the accused for work or land, and least able to force an unwilling police station to act. That objection is serious and it has not been answered simply by repeating it back.
3. Consequences where a court finds a complaint was knowingly false
What we ask. That where a court records a specific finding that a complaint was knowingly false, that finding be acted upon rather than left on the file.
Why. Giving false information to a public servant and instituting a false criminal charge are already offences. A finding that is recorded and then ignored teaches everyone that the provision is decorative.
An important caution about numbers. An acquittal is not a finding that the complaint was false. Nor is a police closure report. Cases collapse because witnesses turn hostile, because investigation is poor, because the complainant cannot afford to keep travelling to court, and because of straightforward delay. Anyone who cites a conviction rate as though it were a false-complaint rate is misusing the figure, and NCGC will not do it. Our position rests only on cases where a court has said, in terms, that the complaint was knowingly false.
The case against. That the prospect of counter-prosecution deters genuine victims from complaining at all, and that the deterrent falls hardest on exactly the people least able to absorb the risk. This is a real cost and it has to be weighed rather than dismissed.
4. Published data on relief and rehabilitation
What we ask. That figures on relief paid under the Rules be published and audited, stage by stage, state by state.
Why. This is one of the most contested questions in the whole debate and it is argued almost entirely on anecdote. Published figures would settle a good deal of it, in whichever direction the evidence points, and we accept that risk.
The case against. That relief is a statutory entitlement for people who have suffered a serious offence, and that scrutinising its disbursement invites the insinuation that victims are motivated by money.
5. Effective legal aid for every indigent accused
What we ask. That state-funded defence counsel under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 be resourced to the point where it is a real defence and not a formality, for accused persons from every community.
Why. Article 39A promises equal justice and free legal aid. In practice the person who goes undefended is the person who cannot pay, and that is a question of poverty rather than of caste. This position costs us nothing to hold consistently, so we hold it consistently.
The case against. None on principle. The argument is about funding.
6. Full implementation of the EWS reservation
What we ask. That the ten per cent reservation for economically weaker sections, upheld in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India in 2022, be filled properly, with vacancy, backlog and carry-forward figures published.
Why. A quota that exists on paper and goes unfilled in practice is worse than no quota, because it generates the appearance of a remedy without the substance of one.
The case against. Janhit Abhiyan was decided by a majority of three to two, and the dissenting judgments are substantial. They held that excluding the poor among the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes from a benefit given to the poor of every other community is itself discriminatory. That criticism goes to the design of the provision and has not gone away because the provision survived.
How we argue these positions
In writing, to the institutions that can act: written representations to the relevant ministries and state governments, submissions to law commissions and parliamentary committees, and applications to intervene where a question of due process is already before a court.
[EDIT: Once you have filed your first representation, link it here as a PDF. Published submissions are what distinguish an advocacy body from an opinion. Until then, this page is a statement of intent and should read as one.]
If you disagree with any of this, we would rather hear it than not. Write to office@ncgc.in.