Maharashtra’s New Social Boycott Law

Maharashtra Protection of People from Social Boycott (Prevention, Prohibition & Redressal) Act 2016 was enacted by the Maharashtra Assembly to end the menace social boycott practiced by extra-judicial institutions like caste and community panchayats. With this Maharashtra became first state in the country to adopt a comprehensive law to root out oppression carried out by parallel justice delivery system (kangaroo court) in the name of age old traditions, caste and religion.

Why there is a need for such a law in Maharashtra?

In recent times, Maharashtra had witnessed an increasing number of incidents of social boycott and violence due to the orders passed by the caste panchayats. However, existing laws were found to be inadequate in dealing with such practices. For years, number of activists and academicians in the state were demanding stringent law to root out the menace of social boycotts from the state.

What are the key features?

• The Act terms social boycott as a crime and says anybody indulging in it would face imprisonment maximum up to three years and a fine of 1 lakh rupees or both.
• The Act provides 15 examples of “social boycott” such as obstructing individuals from observing religious practices or customs, severing social or commercial ties, causing intra-community “discrimination”, expulsion from the community etc.
• It disallows social boycott of any individual or groups by caste panchayats or groups of individuals or gavki or by its members or by social or economically influential persons.
• It is directed against caste panchayats functioning as community-based parallel forums of justice, which issues diktats invariably against recalcitrant individuals who have been considered to have gone beyond the bounds of caste or community morality. So, the Act penalizes discrimination among the members of a community on the basis of “morality, social acceptance, political inclination, or sexuality”.
• Persons involved in practice of social boycott for reasons like rituals of worship, inter-caste marriage, and any connection to lifestyle, dress or vocation will face stringent punishment. The offence registered under the act will be congnizable and bailable. It will be tried by a judicial magistrate of the first class.
• The victim of social boycott or any member of the victim’s family can file a complaint either to police or directly to the magistrate.
• The Act has indicated speedy trial within six months of filing chargesheet in such cases in order to ensure time-bound results.
• Government will recruit social boycott prohibition officers to ensure monitoring and to detect offences and assist the magistrate and police officers in tackling such cases.

Past attempts made to make anti-boycott laws

Pre-independence:

As early as the mid-19th century, there were instances of intra-community battles over access to public goods.  After prolonged protests lasting a few decades, the colonial state finally at the end of the 19th century, decided to allow Dalit students to attend public schools. But the Dalit students were made to sit separately in a verandah outside the classroom and were barred from accessing the common water supply.

The struggle against social boycotts got intensified in the early decades of the 20th century and reached its climax in the late 1920s, with B.R. Ambedkar’s famous Mahad Satyagraha. The satyagraha was directed towards opening up the access to community water tanks to Dalits. Simultaneously, a movement for entry into public temples was also launched by Ambedkar during which he famously argued, “the issue is not entry, but equality.”

Further, Ambedkar identified social boycott as “the most formidable weapon in the hands of the orthodox classes” in his submissions to the Minorities Committee of the Round Table Conference. Dr. Ambedkar had also proposed an anti-boycott law to specifically prohibit the practice of social boycotts which was largely ignored by the colonial government. However, a few proposals of Ambedkar were incorporated into the post-Independence Protection of Civil Rights Act of 1955.

After Independence:

Soon after Independence, Bombay Prevention of Excommunication Act was passed by the State of Bombay passed in 1949, which outlawed the practice of excommunication within religious communities. Subsequently, the constitutional validity of this Act was legally challenged by the “Dai” (head), of the Dawoodi Bohra community. The Dai argued that the law interfered with his religious freedom by curtailing his powers of excommunication.

In 1962, a divided Supreme Court struck down the Bombay Prevention of Excommunication Act citing the practice of excommunication as an essential tool for maintaining community discipline & cohesiveness and also by citing the protection accorded by Article 26(b) of the Constitution to all religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion. However, a petition to reconsider majority opinion in the Dawoodi Bohra case has been pending in the Supreme Court since 1986.

With regards to the above efforts, Maharashtra social boycott law is an important step in the long struggle to secure social inclusion.

Relevant provisions in the constitution

The Constitution guarantees religious freedom and freedom of association. But at the same time, it also curtails the power of groups in various ways to safeguard individual freedom, dignity, and access to basic public goods. Apart from prohibiting untouchability, the Constitution guarantees non-discriminatory access to “shops, public restaurants, hotels, and places of public entertainment” in Article 15(2). In sum, the constitution not only guarantees individuals rights merely against the State but also against other individuals and groups.

Comment

Maharashtra’s social boycott law is an attempt to give effect to the Constitution’s guarantee against social exclusion, as provided in Articles 15(2) and 17. But this is only a first step and as Ambedkar recognized, social exclusion occurs along multiple ways through boycott, stigmatization and segregation. For instance, there exists religion-driven housing discrimination especially in urban areas, which inevitably leads to segregation. So with the sole focus on caste-panchayat driven community boycotts, the Maharashtra law has left a significant area of discrimination untouched. So a comprehensive anti-discrimination law on the lines of the Civil Rights enactments in the US and the UK is the need of the hour. As of now, the Maharashtra law carries forward the judicially dismantled goals of the 1949 Excommunication Act, and the rarely used Protection of Civil Rights Act of 1955.