PIB Tracker217 exclusive SC/ST atrocity courts exist, in 15 States and UTs
The Centre released Rs 1,423.30 crore over three years to implement the two Acts - and the third year was lower than the second.
What happened
- 217 Exclusive Special Courts have been established in 15 States and Union Territories for offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
- Central assistance released: Rs 392.71 crore (2022-23), Rs 535.30 crore (2023-24), Rs 495.29 crore (2024-25) - Rs 1,423.30 crore in all.
- Where caseload is lower, a Court of Session may be designated a Special Court, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court.
- The two statutes are the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
- Implementation rests with States and UTs; the Centre funds a Centrally Sponsored Scheme for enforcement, speedy trial, victim relief and awareness.
For Prelims
- The two Acts do different work: the PCR Act, 1955 enforces Article 17 by punishing the practice of untouchability; the PoA Act, 1989 creates a separate set of offences called atrocities against SCs and STs, with stricter procedure.
- Exclusive Special Court: a court that hears only PoA Act cases, as against a designated Special Court, which is an existing Court of Session given the work in addition to its own. Only the first guarantees a dedicated docket.
- Why the Chief Justice must concur: designating a Court of Session is a judicial administration decision, so the executive cannot do it alone - a separation-of-powers safeguard built into the Act.
- The 2015 amendment to the PoA Act strengthened exactly these provisions - exclusive special courts, exclusive special public prosecutors and a duty of timely investigation - which is the statutory basis for the 217 courts being counted here.
- Centrally Sponsored Scheme: the Centre shares cost with States, which means uptake depends on a State choosing to claim and spend. That is why court coverage is uneven rather than national.
- Relief and rehabilitation: the PoA Rules prescribe monetary relief to victims at defined stages of the case - FIR, charge sheet and conviction - which is part of what the central assistance funds.
- The scale of the gap: 217 exclusive courts across 15 jurisdictions is about fourteen per jurisdiction, in a country with over 750 districts.
- What is not in this release: the conviction rate and pendency under the PoA Act, which are published annually in Crime in India by the NCRB and are the figures against which "speedy trial" would be judged.
For UPSC: Atrocity law is examined on the gap between statute and enforcement, and this release gives you the enforcement side with numbers. Use the court count on access to justice and special courts, the Centrally Sponsored Scheme structure on why rights enforcement varies by State, and the PCR and PoA distinction wherever Article 17 and social justice legislation are the question.
What it is NOT: No conviction rate, acquittal rate or pendency figure appears, so "speedy trial" is asserted without the measure that would test it. The 15 States and UTs are not named, so the 21 without exclusive courts cannot be identified. No count is given of Courts of Session designated as Special Courts, which is how most districts actually hear these cases. No figure for victims who received relief, or the amount. No explanation for central assistance falling in 2024-25 after rising in 2023-24. And no utilisation figure against the Rs 1,423.30 crore released.
For Mains
Syllabus: GS2.12 · GS2.6 · Linkage L1
Anchor
There are 217 Exclusive Special Courts for offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. They exist in 15 States and Union Territories. India has 36. Around twenty-one jurisdictions have no exclusive court at all, and in those places atrocity cases are heard by Courts of Session designated to do the work alongside everything else already on their list.
Substantiation (data)
The Centre has released Rs 1,423.30 crore over three years through the Centrally Sponsored Scheme - Rs 392.71 crore in 2022-23, Rs 535.30 crore in 2023-24 and Rs 495.29 crore in 2024-25 - for enforcement machinery, speedy trial, relief and rehabilitation of victims, awareness of statutory safeguards and grievance redressal. Implementation of both the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and the 1989 Act rests primarily with State Governments and Union Territory Administrations.
Position
An exclusive court is not a formality. A designated Court of Session hears atrocity cases in competition with its ordinary docket, which is how a statute promising speedy trial produces ordinary delay. A court that hears only these cases, with a special public prosecutor attached, is the single structural change most likely to move conviction rates - and 217 of them is a real number, built since the 2015 amendment made them mandatory in principle.
Counterpoint
Fifteen jurisdictions out of thirty-six is the part the release does not dwell on, and the reason is in its own description: this is a Centrally Sponsored Scheme, so a court gets built where a State decides to claim the money and run the establishment. Rights enforcement delivered through optional cost-sharing produces exactly this map - dense where the State was already willing, absent where it was not, and least available where the need is often greatest.
Problematisation
Nothing here measures what the courts achieved. There is no conviction rate, no acquittal rate, no pendency figure, no average time to disposal and no count of victims who actually received the relief the Rules prescribe. Those numbers exist - the NCRB publishes them annually - and a release on strengthening implementation that cites expenditure and infrastructure but no outcome is describing inputs to a problem defined by outputs.
Conclusion
Two hundred and seventeen courts and Rs 1,423 crore are a genuine build-out, and they tell you nothing about whether an atrocity case is likelier to end in a conviction than it was three years ago. The next release on this subject should carry one number: disposal time in exclusive courts against designated ones. That comparison would settle whether the architecture works.
Deploys into: Atrocity law and access to justice · Article 17 and the PCR Act · Centrally Sponsored Schemes and uneven rights enforcement · Special courts and speedy trial
Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment · 2026-10-01 · PRID 2317515 · PIB source ↗