The Lift Line
“After Independence, the legal regime has come but the social conscience in India remains frozen.” (Valerian Rodrigues, The Hindu Parley)
Why This Editorial Matters for Your Exam
This is a Parley, The Hindu’s moderated debate, published on 9 October 2026. It is a conversation, not an editorial of the paper. The participants, as The Hindu describes them:
- Valerian Rodrigues, “Former Professor at Mangalore University and Jawaharlal Nehru University and currently Professor Emeritus, St Aloysius (Deemed to be) University, Mangalore”.
- Disha Wadekar, a “Supreme Court litigator with over 10 years of experience in constitutional, criminal and civil law”, a Fulbright Scholar and LL.M. graduate of Columbia Law School.
- Moderated by Abhinay Lakshman.
Its value for an aspirant is the question it asks: what can law do, and what can it not do, against a social practice? That question runs through GS1, GS2 and the Essay paper, and the two speakers give you a ready structure: law’s achievements, its limits, and what must be added.
GS Paper 1: caste and social empowerment; the persistence of social practices. GS Paper 2: Fundamental Rights (Article 17); mechanisms and laws for the protection of vulnerable sections; the role of civil society. GS Paper 4: attitudes, social influence and persuasion. Essay: law and social change.
New to this topic? Start here: the basics in plain words (revision card 1 of 8)
Background and Context
What set off the debate
The Hindu’s introduction to the Parley explains the trigger. In August 2026, certain Hindu groups performed a “purification” ritual in Uttarakhand at the place where Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge, who belongs to a Dalit community, had addressed a public rally. Opposition Congress leaders accused the ruling BJP of practising caste discrimination; the Uttarakhand BJP chief defended the ritual as meant to “cleanse” the area of Mr. Kharge’s ideas. After a campaign by Opposition leaders and civil society, an FIR was registered.
The legal architecture
As background, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment sets out the framework in a Lok Sabha reply of December 2025 (PIB):
| Instrument | What it does |
|---|---|
| Article 17 of the Constitution | Abolished ‘untouchability’, forbade its practice and made enforcement of any disability arising out of it a punishable offence |
| Protection of Civil Rights (PCR) Act, 1955 | Prescribes punishment for enforcement of any disability arising from the practice of ‘untouchability’ |
| SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) (PoA) Act, 1989 | Enacted to prevent atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes; amended in 2016 and 2018, as the Ministry puts it, with revised Rules (the amending Acts are of 2015, in force from 26 January 2016, and 2018) |
| Central review Committee | Chaired by the Union Minister for Social Justice and Empowerment, with the Union Minister for Tribal Affairs as co-chair; reviews how States and UTs implement both Acts. Its 29th meeting was held in January 2026 (PIB) |
Note the division of labour: the PCR Act deals with untouchability offences; the PoA Act deals with atrocities against SCs and STs. The Parley itself does not cite these laws; it asks why, with all of them in place, the practice persists.
The Analysis
1. Necessary, but not adequate. Rodrigues sees two strands in the fight against untouchability: Ambedkar’s, that untouchable practices must be abolished, and Gandhi’s, that social conscience must change. After Independence, he says, the legal regime arrived, but the social conscience has stayed frozen.
2. Law as the only break with the “law of caste”. Wadekar starts from the nature of law itself. Formal law is not a perfect instrument correcting an imperfect society; the law of caste has operated for thousands of years. She uses the idea of legal consciousness, shaped by everyday experience of law, and asks that law be brought “down from that pedestal”. Yet she is clear that the formal rule of law was the only break with the law of caste, and “from an anti-caste perspective, for Dalits, this rule of law regime was emancipatory”. The question is whether it is enough to annihilate caste.
3. What the law has achieved. Rodrigues credits the legal regime with two things. It has “checkmated, to a great extent” the wider and more obvious practices: denial of water from public wells, of access to public places and institutions, and the violence once let loose on Dalit workers in the countryside. And it has given conscious sections of Dalits and non-Dalits instruments to fight back, even with limited resources.
4. Discrimination changes form. Wadekar divides atrocities into two kinds: traditional forms, and reactionary forms that respond to Dalits’ social mobility since the Constitution came into force. That mobility, she argues, has bred discontent among oppressor communities, citing a “Reservation Hatao Andolan”, and new atrocities that come from a sentiment of “how dare you sit next to me?”
5. “Notions in the mind”. For Rodrigues, untouchability is embedded in social norms, in what he says Ambedkar called “notions in the mind”, held by Dalits and non-Dalits alike. He points to efforts between 1939 and 1949 to reopen Indian society that were not carried forward. Inter-dining and inter-marriage, he says, have disappeared from public spaces, and there is little intermingling across castes even in cities. The state must encourage change, but the task is also beyond the state: non-state actors must take it up.
6. The limits of criminal law. Wadekar cites scholarly material showing that stricter criminal punishment, whether for gender, caste or other social crimes, does not have the result one would presume, and says it has become counterproductive, because those who adjudicate are “not just judicial actors but also social actors”. Criminal law rightly requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt; it has “a huge deterrence value”, but it will not eliminate atrocities.
7. Civil remedies and local forums. She suggests exploring civil law and civil remedies, where the burden of proving discrimination is lower, as the POSH Act has done. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 works through Internal Committees, which employers must form in workplaces with 10 or more employees, and Local Committees set up by District Officers in every district (PIB). She also points to local dispute resolution, such as certain types of Sharia adalats (courts) that Muslim women have felt empowered to approach when they felt they could not go to court, and Gram Sabhas acting as local forums.
8. Rebuilding the “common”. Rodrigues’s remedy is the “common”: shared public life that institutions can build. Textbooks and teacher training at the lowest level can change, and urban planning can stop Dalits being made to congregate in certain spaces. The normalcy of “Dalits should have their own Anganwadis, or their own water taps” has to be broken.
Data and Institutions Vault
Prelims-grade facts:
- Article 17: abolished ‘untouchability’, forbade its practice and made enforcement of any disability arising out of it an offence punishable in accordance with law (PIB).
- Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955: prescribes punishment for enforcing any disability arising from the practice of ‘untouchability’.
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: enacted to prevent atrocities against SCs and STs.
- PoA amendments: the Amendment Act, 2015 (in force from 26 January 2016) and the Amendment Act, 2018; the Rules were also revised.
- Review machinery: a Committee chaired by the Union Minister for Social Justice and Empowerment reviews both Acts across States and UTs.
- Its co-chair: the Union Minister for Tribal Affairs.
- Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013: Internal Committees in workplaces with 10 or more employees (PIB).
- Same Act: Local Committees in every district (PIB).
- Burden of proof: criminal law requires proof beyond reasonable doubt; Wadekar points to civil remedies, where the burden is lower.
⚠️ Watch the trap: The PCR Act, 1955 punishes untouchability offences; the PoA Act, 1989 targets atrocities against SCs and STs. They are separate laws, and the amendments of 2015 and 2018 are to the PoA Act. Article 17 abolishes ‘untouchability’; the PCR Act, 1955 is the law that prescribes the punishment.
The Debate
Rodrigues’s case. Law has done its first job: it has curbed open practices and armed those who resist. The harder job is to change the conscience behind the practice. That needs institutions that reach children before notions take root: schools, teachers, neighbourhoods and shared public services. Without social “reopening”, the law will keep chasing new forms of the same prejudice.
Wadekar’s case. The rule of law was emancipatory and must stay, but criminal law has built-in limits: a high standard of proof and judges who are also social actors. Increasingly, she notes, marginalised communities across the world are not relying on carceral regimes. Civil remedies with a lower burden of proof, and local forums people trust, can reach discrimination that prosecution misses.
The other side. Article 17 itself makes enforcing any disability arising out of untouchability a punishable offence, and Wadekar herself grants that criminal provisions have a huge deterrence value. Lowering the burden of proof in civil proceedings raises questions of fairness to the accused. Local forums such as Gram Sabhas and religious bodies can also reflect the very hierarchies they are asked to correct.
The balanced verdict. The two speakers agree more than they differ: law is necessary and not sufficient. A credible answer keeps the criminal law and enforces it, adds civil and local remedies with safeguards, and invests in the slow work of building a common public life.
How to Think About This
Use a “floor and building” frame. Law sets the floor: Article 17 and the two Acts tell society what it may not do. The building above it is made of norms, which law shapes only indirectly. For any question on a social evil, sort your answer into four layers: the Constitution (the guarantee), statutes (criminal and civil), institutions (police, courts, committees, Gram Sabhas) and norms (schools, neighbourhoods, families). Then ask which layer is failing. The Parley’s answer is that the last two are doing too little.
Diagram-in-Words
Is law enough to end untouchability? The Parley’s answer
Both speakers say law is necessary but not sufficient, and they look for what must be added.
Takeaway Box
- Core idea: legal guarantees against untouchability are necessary but not sufficient; changing the social conscience needs institutions beyond criminal law.
- Know the anchors: Article 17; PCR Act, 1955; SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989 (amended by Acts of 2015 and 2018); the 2013 sexual harassment law as a civil-remedy model.
- Know the speakers: Valerian Rodrigues (the “common”, social conscience) and Disha Wadekar (legal consciousness, civil remedies); moderator Abhinay Lakshman.
- Mains use: GS1 caste and social empowerment; GS2 Fundamental Rights and protection of vulnerable sections; GS4 attitudes; essay on law and social change.
Revision Cards
UjiyariRodrigues's case: card 3 →UjiyariWadekar's case: card 4 →UjiyariThe static base: card 5 →UjiyariTest yourself on card 6 →Show answer
Show answer
Show answer
UjiyariWatch the trap: card 7 →R1Who moderated the Parley?
R2Which phrase does Rodrigues attribute to Ambedkar?
R3Who chairs the central Committee that reviews the PCR and PoA Acts?
UjiyariWrite the Mains answer on card 8 →UjiyariNow take today’s quiz →Sources: The Hindu, Parley, “Are legal guarantees insufficient in abolishing untouchability?”, 9 October 2026; PIB, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Existence of Untouchability, December 2025; PIB, 29th review meeting on the PCR and PoA Acts, January 2026; PIB Backgrounder, Safeguarding Women at Work, February 2026.
Source: Legal Guarantees and Untouchability: Article 17, PCR, PoA — Ujiyari.com | Free UPSC & State PCS Editorial Analysis
