Supreme Court: Abuses Must Be Laced With Caste Name Or Caste Name Must Be Hurled As Abuse To Constitute Offence U/s. 3(1)(s) SC/ST Act
The Court held that the offence under Section 3(1)(r) cannot stand merely on the fact that the informant/complainant is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.
The Supreme Court, while quashing criminal proceedings, has observed that mere abuse or mention of a caste name without intent to humiliate does not constitute an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Alok Aradhe observed, “What appears from the aforesaid is the element of humiliation is present in Section 3(1)(s) as well. It has to be gathered from the intentional insult towards the caste, and the content. The content under Section 3(1)(s) are the abuses hurled at a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. However, the intent with which the abuses were hurled must be found to be denigrating towards the caste, resulting into a feeling of caste-based humiliation.”
AOR Preetika Dwivedi appeared for the Appellant, while AOR Samir Ali Khan appeared for the Respondents.
The Court also observed, “In other words, to constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(s) it would be necessary that the accused abuses a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe “by the caste name” in any place within public view. Thus, the allegations must reveal that abuses were laced with caste name, or the caste name had been hurled as an abuse.”
Facts of the case
An appeal was filed assailing the order passed by the Patna High Court by which the appeal preferred by the appellant herein seeking to challenge the legality and validity of the cognizance and summoning order passed by the trial court came to be dismissed.
On the date of the incident, the original First Informant was sitting with a friend at an Aanganwadi Center in Santhali Tola when the appellant and other accused persons arrived. The accused allegedly abused the Informant, including the use of caste-based slurs.
Following these events, the Informant lodged an FIR, which led to an investigation and a subsequent chargesheet. On October 9, 2020, the Special Judge in Bhagalpur took cognizance of several offences under the Indian Penal Code and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Dissatisfied with the cognizance and summoning order, the appellant appealed to the High Court under Section 14A of the SC/ST Act. After the High Court declined to quash the prosecution, the appellant moved the Supreme Court to challenge that decision.
Observation of the Court
The Court, firstly, examined whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, respectively, are disclosed on a plain reading of the FIR and the chargesheet.
The Court said, “Section 3(1)(r) is attracted where the reason for the intentional insult or intimidation by the accused is that the person who is subjected to is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. In other words, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) cannot stand merely on the fact that the informant/complainant is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, unless the insult or intimidation is with the intention to humiliate such a member of the community.”
Briefly, the Court observed that, first, the fact that the complainant belonged to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe would not be enough. Secondly, any insult or intimidation towards the complainant must be on account of such person being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.
The Court clarified that even mere knowledge of the fact that the complainant is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe is not sufficient to attract Section 3(1)(r).
“Further, for an offence to be made out under Section 3(1)(s), merely abusing a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe would not be enough. At the same time, saying caste name would also not constitute an offence”, it held.
In the present case, the Court observed that the allegations levelled against the appellant in the FIR do not meet the essential ingredients of any of the offences and are rather general in nature.
“Mere presence of the appellant does not establish his participation in the alleged offence”, it held.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and the impugned order passed by the High Court was set aside. Hence, the criminal prosecution against the Appellant was quashed.
Cause Title: Keshaw Mahto@ Keshaw Kumar Mahto v. State of Bihar & Anr. [SLP(Crl.) 72999/2025]
Appearances:
Appellant: AOR Preetika Dwivedi, Advocates Abhisek Mohanty, Ishan Kapoor, Ansh Rajauria and Anupam Mishra.
Respondents: AOR Samir Ali Khan, Advocates Pranjal Sharma and Kashif Irshad Khan Faridi