Social boycotts: Karnataka betters Maha Act, enforcement tricky

By defining and prohibiting 19 forms of social boycott and granting powers to police officers to register suo motu cases, the Karnataka Social Boycott (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Bill has improvised on a similar Act in Maharashtra, even as concerns remain on effective implementation.

The Maharashtra Protection of People from Social Boycott (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2016, was a first-of-its-kind legislation in the country. 

The Act defines 16 forms of social boycott, including committing or causing to commit social ostracism on any grounds, preventing entry to educational institution, medical institution, community halls, places meant for charitable, religious or public purposes and a place of worship or pilgrimage, preventing children of one’s community from playing with children of specific families, preventing a member from having social, religious, professional or business relations and so on. 

While the Karnataka Bill retains all these aspects, it also criminalises refusal to deal with, hire or do business with another person, denying opportunities for rendering service, abstaining from professional relations and refusing to do anything that is naturally done.

While both legislations mandate appointing a designated social boycott prohibition officer, the Karnataka Bill specifies that such an officer cannot be lesser than a group A government officer. 

As per the Maharashtra law, the officer has to assist the police and submit a quarterly report to the magistrate and SP/police commissioner. While these aspects are absent in the Karnataka Bill, social welfare commissioner Rakesh Kumar K said additions would be made while framing rules.

Suo motu cases

While both legislations state that the victim or their family members can file a complaint with police, the Karnataka Bill has gone further and provided suo motu powers to the police to register cases when they get information of offence under this Bill.

“This is because the victim may not volunteer to submit a complaint because of the fear of those imposing the boycott,” Kumar told DH.

The suo motu clause wasn’t part of the Bill when it was taken up for discussion in the Assembly on December 18. 

During the deliberations, senior Congress member T B Jayachandra said that a suo motu clause was needed, explaining that victims would not be able to “survive” if they register cases themselves. 

He was seconded by veteran Congress member B R Patil, following which Social Welfare Minister Dr H C Mahadevappa assured to add this point in the Bill.

Both the legislations propose a jail term of three years and a fine of up to Rs 1 lakh. 

Both laws are applicable not just to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, but to all communities facing social discrimination.

However, most of the victims of social boycott are from SC/ST communities.

Violation of rights 

Piloting the Bill in the House, Mahadevappa said social boycotts were a direct violation of civil rights and against the basic principles of the Constitution. 

The bill was appreciated by legislators cutting across parties, and was unanimously passed in both Houses. It is yet to be approved by Governor Thaawar Chand Gehlot.

However, concerns remain over effective implementation of the law. Explaining the on-ground challenges while dealing with atrocity cases, a senior police officer said all challenges that arise while dealing with SC/ST atrocity cases would also happen here.

Challenges

“The first challenge is the stranglehold of dominant castes. Secondly, there will be delayed reporting, and finally, there will be compromises even after reporting”.

Explaining the challenges victims face while speaking about social ostracism, he said the inter-dependent village economy, where several things run akin to the barter system, scares victims from coming out.

The officer said merely providing suo motu powers would not bring about radical changes. 

"In 99.9% of the cases, police have suo motu powers. Except in rape and POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) cases, police can register suo motu cases. But, there’s an attitudinal problem. Police officers play it safe, and only when the SP insists on it, they take cases".