Why a Second Act Was Needed

Why Parliament, having legislated against untouchability in 1955, legislated again in 1989 on a completely different principle.

In one line: the 1955 Act punishes a practice and requires the prosecution to prove that the act was done on the ground of "untouchability"; the 1989 Act punishes an offence committed against a person because of that person's status as a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, and after 2016 requires only that the accused knew the status. That change, from practice to status, is the whole answer.

In the wording a student can write in an exam: every offence in sections 3 to 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955 opens with the words "on the ground of 'untouchability'", and each carries one to six months and a fine of one hundred to five hundred rupees; while section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 requires only that the offender be a person not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and that the victim be such a member, and carries not less than six months and up to five years and fine, rising under section 3(2) to imprisonment for life.

The five differences

Learn them as a table, because a question on this topic is very often a comparison.

Add three more that decide cases.

Neglect of duty. Under the 1955 Act a public servant who wilfully neglects an investigation is deemed to have abetted the offence by the Explanation to section 10, and section 15(2) then requires previous sanction to prosecute him. Under the 1989 Act section 4 makes wilful neglect a substantive offence carrying six months to one year, and sub-section (2) lists the duties in terms: to read out to an informant the information reduced to writing before taking his signature, to register the first information report under the appropriate sections of this Act, to furnish a copy forthwith, to record the statements of victims and witnesses, and to complete the investigation and file the charge sheet within sixty days, explaining any delay in writing.