Social Boycott Meaning and the Social Boycott Prevention Act

Social boycott meaning- according to the legislation, a social boycott’s meaning refers to the administrative attempt to hinder the collective refusal of another individual or group from following any social or religious custom or ritual or from participating in a social, religious, or community ceremony, assembly, sanctuary, gathering, or procession

Individual freedom is challenged in the guise of jati panchayats, religion, tradition, or denial of the freedom to pursue a career of one’s choosing, which amounts to a social boycott.

Freedom includes the ability to marry beyond one’s caste, visit places of worship, dress as one pleases, and speak any language. Discrimination based on morality, political leanings, or sexuality is also considered a social boycott. Examples include preventing kids from playing in a certain region or denying access to burial plots, community centres, or educational institutions with nefarious motives.

Reasons for the Law Against Social Boycotts

• In India, a heritage caste system was formed in ancient times and is still in practice, and its manifestation can already be observed directly.
• The execution of gavki jati panchayats in Maharashtra and the famously known khap panchayats in Haryana are instances of the caste system’s rigorous enforcement.
• After convening, these committees issue extrajudicial judgments that are inhuman and go against the individual’s dignity and are sometimes brutal and severe.
• For example, after putting black paint on their faces, women were paraded through the village naked, individuals were shunned because they broke the assembly’s so-called set rules, and individuals were whipped and lashed. In rare situations, the rape victim was married to the rapist.
• These extrajudicial declarations are still being carried out in rural regions where the caste system and social hierarchy are quite prevalent.

Provisions for Punishment Against Collective Refusal

• On obtaining information about the possibility of an unlawful assembly for the imposition of a social boycott, a Collector or District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner might issue an order prohibiting a crowd of people.
• A sentence of up to three years in prison or a fine of up to Rs. 1 lakh will be imposed if you are convicted of the crime of social boycott. Individual or group abetment will result in the same punishment.
• It is a cognisable and bailable offence that will be tried by a Judicial Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate First Class. The trial would have to be finished within six months of filing the charge sheet to achieve prompt justice under the Act.

Impact of the Act

• With the government’s active involvement and the passage of legislation to combat the evil of social boycotts, Members of the community could exercise their constitutional rights more easily and legally. People can now marry outside of their caste, and public places, wells, and temples are open to the public.
• The government has gone even farther, declaring that sexual orientation is a personal choice and that boycotts along those lines will face the same sanctions as the legislation listed above.

Role of Social Organisations in the Passing of the Legislation

Following the so-called “honour killing” of Pramila Khumbharkar, a movement opposing a social boycott gained considerable popular support. Kumbharkar, a member of a nomadic tribe who married Deepak Kamble of the scheduled caste community, was allegedly murdered by her father while nine months pregnant. Months before his death, the slain rationalist Narendra Dabholkar organised a protest against the social boycott. Because his wife wore jeans, Rahul Yelange (30), a member of a Pune team that conquered Mount Everest in May 2012, suffered a social boycott in his hamlet of Budruk in Raigad. In Roha, there have been 22 instances of a social boycott since 2010.

 Challenges Ahead

• Despite the legal underpinning, there are fears of a growing backlash among the country’s many communities.
• For example, The empowerment of the village’s so-called lower castes may be opposed by orthodox older adults in villages who rigorously adhere to the caste system and its established rules, potentially leading to a rise in the frequency of honour killings. This could lead to further social unrest in rural areas.
• According to data released by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) in 2014, the number of offences committed against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes grew to 20% in the past three years.
• One key reason for the rise in crimes, which is a natural result of the first argument, is that people are becoming more aware of their (SCs and STs) rights and the legal methods available to enforce those rights. As a result, they are preparing to use government machinery to safeguard their interests against caste discrimination.

Conclusion

Maharashtra’s government has taken a positive move in the right way. As a result of legal backing for the prohibition of social boycott measures, the number of people who can now express their rights more effectively and have the opportunity to live a better life will rise. Furthermore, because these rights are already enshrined in the Constitution, they will be better utilised by various individuals. The Act is an excellent example of citizen empowerment. However, as with any other Indian Act, implementation is crucial.