Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal on Monday claimed that conviction rates under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act have improved significantly during the Modi government compared with the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) years, crediting faster court processes and the expansion of digital tools that help investigators build stronger cases.
Social justice push
Reiterating the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government’s social justice narrative, Meghwal said “PM Modi’s policies have fulfilled the objectives of social justice,” echoing remarks he made earlier in the day, where he linked the government’s welfare architecture with improved legal outcomes for marginalised communities.
Speaking to journalists, Meghwal said the government’s technological push, including an e-portal integrating FIRs, charge-sheets, forensic reports and court timelines, has reduced delays and given prosecutors real-time visibility over atrocity cases.
But the government’s claims come against a complicated statistical backdrop. National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data shows that while reporting of cases has risen steadily over the past decade, conviction rates under the SC/ST Atrocities Act remain uneven and, in some years, have dipped.
Crimes against Scheduled Castes crossed 57,000 cases in 2023, according to the NCRB. Four states together account for almost two-thirds of all cases — Uttar Pradesh has 15,000 cases, Rajasthan has 8,500, Madhya Pradesh has 7,800, and Bihar has 7,000. These states have historically recorded a high number of FIRs, but they also show a large pendency in trials.
Conviction outcomes, however, complicate the minister’s claims. In 2020, conviction rates in PoA Act cases stood at 39–40 per cent. By 2022, they fell to 32–33 pc, according to NCRB compilations.
Acquittal rates remain high, with over 60 pc of PoA cases ending in acquittal or discharge. Delayed investigations, witnesses turning hostile, non-appearance in court, and gaps in evidence collection are among the most frequently cited reasons.
Much of the Act’s present structure stems from UPA-era reforms. The UPA-II government introduced some of the most significant reforms to the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In 2014, it piloted amendments that expanded the list of offences, recognised new forms of caste violence, mandated exclusive special courts, strengthened provisions on victim compensation, and formalised witness protection. These amendments, notified in January 2016, created a more stringent legal framework.
The NDA government’s role has largely been in implementation and system strengthening. It introduced digital case-tracking, upgraded forensic and prosecution systems, expanded e-prosecution portals, and pushed states to operationalise exclusive courts. While the UPA strengthened the law, the NDA focused on strengthening the process.
State performance varies sharply. Madhya Pradesh has recorded conviction rates of around 23 pc in recent years. Rajasthan, despite high registration, has struggled to move beyond the mid-20 pc range. In contrast, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka often report conviction rates above 40 pc, bolstered by stronger prosecution infrastructure, robust forensic support and more functional exclusive courts.
Technology push: Promise vs reality
Meghwal’s emphasis on digital interventions is backed by ongoing upgrades. The government cites integration with the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), statewide e-prosecution portals for charge-sheet monitoring, video-conferencing for witness testimony, digitised forensic work orders and online evidence tracking.
Also read
- What did former CJI B R Gavai said about SC reservation and Ambedkar that irked his own community?
- Bihar CM Nitish Kumar's 10th term: Expectations high on employment, industrialisation, women welfare schemes
- Chirag Paswan's LJP-RV would have went solo in Bihar if not for THIS BJP's leader: Report
- Bihar elections: Is the BJP's early celebration in vain? New exit polls make shocking revelations
By contrasting Congress-era conviction rates with the NDA’s performance, Meghwal situates a sensitive social justice issue within the government’s broader narrative of efficiency and modernisation. But the data shows no simple, upward trajectory. Case reporting has improved, but conviction rates have not shown a sustained rise, particularly in high-burden states.
Even as the Centre highlights technological upgrades and a governance-driven approach to social justice, the core challenge remains systemic, strengthening investigations, reducing pendency, enhancing witness protection, expanding exclusive courts, and improving the quality of prosecution.
