The point was that there was just the one legal case, and even that isn't decided. Before creating a law to fight an evil, shouldn't there be some examples of the evil in operation?
That's my point: there's plenty of evidence (at least one ongoing court case and lots of personal anecdotes), and there are plenty of people denying that the evidence is real (lots of personal anecdotes). Governments have to weigh the evidence for and against and make a decision.
In general, when weighing evidence, negative evidence cannot be given the same weight as positive evidence.
For example, I have never seen an elephant in the wild, but it would be a very foolish process that takes my testimony as proof that elephants are extinct in the wild without at least listening to the people who claim to have seen elephants in the wild. A more likely explanation for my negative evidence is that I have never been in an elephant's natural habitat.
In the same way, if there are lots of voices saying that caste discrimination happens and lots saying that it doesn't, it would be irrational to listen to the negative evidence to the exclusion of the positive evidence.
In general, when weighing evidence, negative evidence cannot be given the same weight as positive evidence.
For example, I have never seen an elephant in the wild, but it would be a very foolish process that takes my testimony as proof that elephants are extinct in the wild without at least listening to the people who claim to have seen elephants in the wild. A more likely explanation for my negative evidence is that I have never been in an elephant's natural habitat.
In the same way, if there are lots of voices saying that caste discrimination happens and lots saying that it doesn't, it would be irrational to listen to the negative evidence to the exclusion of the positive evidence.