Single Word Caste-Based Abuse Enough To Attract SC/ST Act; Length Of Expression Immaterial: J&K And Ladakh High Court

The Court was hearing an appeal challenging the rejection of anticipatory bail in a case alleging assault and caste-based abuse during a public function.

A Bench of Justice Rajesh Sekhri observed: “an abuse by a person not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, directed against a member of such community “by caste name” in any place within public view, is sufficient to constitute an offence within the meaning of Section 3(1)(s) of the Act and whether such abuse consists of a single word or more than one word shall be immaterial for the purpose. If ingredients necessary to constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the Act are made out, the accused is liable to be prosecuted, and the bar of pre-arrest bail shall be attracted”.

Advocates J. P. Gandhi and Nipun Gandhi appeared for the appellant, while Senior AAG Monika Kohli appeared for the respondents.

Background

The case arose from an incident allegedly occurring during a public event, where the complainant alleged that the accused persons had assaulted him and used a derogatory caste-based expression against him in public view.

An FIR came to be registered, invoking offences under the penal law along with Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. The investigation involved recording statements from witnesses and examining electronic materials related to the incident.

The trial Court rejected the plea for anticipatory bail, holding that the allegations prima facie disclosed the commission of offences under the SC/ST Act, thereby attracting the statutory bar on pre-arrest bail.

Court’s Observation

The Court examined the scope of Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act and reiterated that the essential ingredients of the offence are that the accused, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, intentionally abuses a member of such community by caste name in a place within public view.

It clarified that the nature of the expression, whether consisting of a single word or multiple words, is not determinative, as long as the abuse is referable to the victim's caste identity. The Court observed that an abuse directed against a member of such a community, by caste name, in any place within public view, is sufficient to constitute an offence, and whether such abuse consists of a single word or more than one word shall be immaterial for the purpose.

At the same time, the Court emphasised that not every abusive expression would fall within the ambit of the provision. It held that the abuse must be specifically directed at the victim on account of his or her caste, and not merely a general insult arising out of a sudden altercation.

“The requirement of law is that it is not a generic abuse or insult, but the accused must know that the victim belongs to an SC/ST community and the utterance specifically targets that identity in public view”, the Bench remarked.

The Court further reiterated the settled position that the bar on anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act would apply only when the allegations, on their face, disclose the essential ingredients of the offence. It was observed that where such ingredients are not prima facie made out, the statutory bar would not operate.

Upon examining the material on record, including the electronic evidence and statements relied upon by the prosecution, the Court found that there was no clear or cogent material demonstrating that the alleged caste-based abuse had in fact been made in the manner alleged.

“I have gone through the video recording of the alleged occurrence as also the press conference of the petitioner, in order to verify the claim of the respondents that electronic evidence clearly depicts caste-based abuse by the petitioner. Although the petitioner, in the video recording collected by the investigating agency, can be seen assaulting someone, however, in so far as, offences under sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act are concerned, nothing incriminating is discernible from the recording”, Justice Sekhri Observed.

In this context, the Court held that the foundational requirement for attracting the offence under Section 3(1)(s) was not prima facie established.

Conclusion

The High Court held that while even a single-word caste-based abuse in public view is sufficient to attract the offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, such offence must be prima facie disclosed from the material on record for the bar on anticipatory bail to apply.

Finding that the necessary ingredients were not established at this stage, the Court allowed the appeal and directed that the appellant be released on bail in the event of arrest, subject to conditions.

Cause Title: Santosha Devi v. UT of J&K & Ors.

Click here to read/download Judgment