Vulnerables: The Untouchables of Accountability
In contemporary society, the concept of vulnerability requires critical examination. Does vulnerability pertain to individuals who experience oppression, those whose voices remain unheard, or those historically misrepresented, excluded, or denied dignity? Alternatively, can vulnerability be strategically employed as a tool to evade accountability? Consider the implications when individuals who have transcended their vulnerable circumstances continue to claim such an identity for personal gain. Furthermore, what are the consequences when genuine vulnerability is exploited as a pretext for misconduct, manipulation, or even illegal activities? The pertinent inquiry may not solely concern identifying who is vulnerable, but rather understanding the dynamics when vulnerability itself is utilized to render others vulnerable.
Troubling Incidents
What are the implications when the discourse of vulnerability is employed as a justification to render others vulnerable? Society encourages sensitivity, understanding of marginalization, respect for diversity, and acknowledgment of historical injustices. These are indeed necessary. However, does this understanding cease when accountability is required? Consider the troubling incidents reported in recent years. In Bengaluru, a young man claimed that a group of transgender individuals detained him, coerced him into begging, threatened his family, and subsequently drugged and forcibly mutilated him, allegedly using photographs of the incident for blackmail. A criminal case was filed, and the allegations are under investigation.
In another Bengaluru incident, three transgender individuals were apprehended after allegedly intruding on a housewarming ceremony and demanding Rs. 50,000 as a fee for their blessings. Upon refusal, they purportedly abused and threatened the attendees. In 2026, Lucknow police detained members of a group accused of exploiting wedding ceremonies as a pretext to intimidate women and forcibly seize jewelry and cash.
Additionally, numerous encounters seldom escalate to police cases: demands for money at traffic signals, railway stations, shops, temples, and celebrations; the clapping, intimidation, and curses when requests are denied. Even a blessing can become transactional, and refusal can be perceived as an offense by the demander.
The issue is not whether transgender individuals deserve dignity—they unequivocally do. The critical question is whether one can demand dignity for oneself while denying it to others. If vulnerability is used as a shield against all inquiries, complaints, and consequences, then the focus must expand beyond the vulnerable. It is essential to consider who becomes vulnerable when this shield is misappropriated.
Law as Weapon
The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was established with the critical objective of safeguarding communities historically subjected to caste-based humiliation, discrimination, and violence. However, a complex issue emerges when the protective mechanisms are allegedly exploited for unintended purposes. This occurs when complaints are fabricated, caste is introduced into disputes that are fundamentally personal or property-related, or when the prospect of statutory compensation incentivizes misuse of the law. Courts have encountered such instances. In October 2025, a Special SC/ST Court in Lucknow convicted a woman for lodging a false complaint that led to an FIR under the SC/ST Act, sentencing her to three years and six months of imprisonment. The court also mandated the recovery of any relief obtained under the Act. It was noted that an FIR alone does not establish a prima facie case for statutory compensation, emphasizing the necessity to prevent the law's misuse for financial gain.
In another case in Lucknow, lawyer Lakhan Singh received a sentence of ten years and six months after a court determined that he had repeatedly filed false cases against adversaries, including an SC/ST Act case stemming from a protracted land dispute. The court recommended action regarding his license and ordered the recovery of government relief obtained through the allegedly false atrocity case. More recently, in September 2026, the Allahabad High Court mandated a comprehensive inquiry across Uttar Pradesh following the State's disclosure that a Jhansi-based lawyer and his family members had received over ₹23 lakh in relief across several SC/ST Act cases, with additional claims pending. The court's order is noteworthy, yet it must be accurately described: the court did not declare the family's claims fraudulent. Instead, it instructed an investigation into whether repeated claims and the compensation mechanism were being properly verified and administered.
The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that the Act must fulfill its statutory requirements. In Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, the Court differentiated between an ordinary insult or intimidation and an offence under the SC/ST Act, stating that the alleged conduct must have a necessary connection to the victim's caste identity and meet the statutory elements of the offence. Therefore, a crucial distinction must be maintained. An individual belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe does not become a false complainant merely because a case results in acquittal. Nor does the presence of some fabricated complaints invalidate genuine experiences of caste atrocities. However, a person's vulnerable social identity should not render an allegation immune from scrutiny. A law designed to protect the vulnerable must remain robust enough to safeguard genuine victims and precise enough to expose those who intentionally misuse it. When the vulnerability card is played dishonestly, the individual on the opposing side of that card can also become vulnerable.
For decades, the portrayal of Hindu deities in art has consistently raised a critical question: at what point does artistic expression transition into an act of disrespect? M.F. Husain’s contentious depictions of Hindu goddesses remain among the most frequently debated instances. However, this discourse persists. In 2025, Canadian rapper Tommy Genesis encountered criticism for a music video deemed explicit, in which her appearance was perceived as resembling Goddess Kali. Similarly, in August 2026, a dance performance in Kolkata depicting Kali incited public backlash concerning the costume and presentation, leading the organizers to issue an apology. The issue, therefore, is not whether artists should possess freedom; they should. Nonetheless, freedom entails responsibility. When the sacred symbols of millions are employed as instruments for provocation, sexuality, ridicule, or publicity, should religious sensitivity be dismissed as mere intolerance? Perhaps the fundamental question is: why must artistic freedom invariably necessitate the compromise of faith's dignity?
Perhaps we need to name a phenomenon that has increasingly entered public discourse: Minoritarianism—not minority status itself, but the excessive invocation of minority vulnerability to demand exceptional accommodation, evade scrutiny, or silence legitimate criticism.
A minority can genuinely be vulnerable. But vulnerability cannot become a permanent moral shield. Nor can majority status automatically make an individual an oppressor. When the protection of minorities crosses into unquestionable appeasement, the very principle intended to protect vulnerable citizens can produce another kind of vulnerability: the vulnerability of those who fear questioning, criticizing, or even disagreeing. This is where the paradox becomes uncomfortable. If a person invokes vulnerability to intimidate another, misuse a protective mechanism, make a false allegation, or escape accountability, the person on the receiving end becomes vulnerable too.
The answer is not to weaken protections for genuine victims. It is to ensure that protection does not become immunity. Minority protection should protect people from discrimination; it should never protect wrongdoing from scrutiny.
Perhaps that is the line between minority protection and minoritarianism: one seeks equality, while the other risks turning vulnerability into privilege. A just society cannot measure injustice merely by asking who belongs to the majority or minority. It must ask who has been harmed, who is accountable, and whether the same standard of justice is being applied to everyone. Otherwise, in protecting one vulnerability, we may quietly manufacture another.
(The writer is a Bengaluru-based author and scholar. Views personal.)
Comments