The Supreme Court has ruled that allegations of caste-based insult or abuse under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 cannot proceed merely on the basis of a general allegation. 

The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta has observed that the statutory requirement that the alleged insult, intimidation or caste-based abuse must occur at a place “within public view” has to be supported by the material collected during investigation.

The complainant’s sons were studying at a school where the appellant was the Manager. On January 24, 2020, one of the complainant’s sons sustained injuries following a quarrel with other students. The complainant subsequently approached the appellant. It was alleged that the appellant, along with school staff, abused and assaulted him with lathis, sticks and fists and that caste-based abuses were also used against him.

Buy Now: JurisHour Ultimate Legal Research Combo – 4 Premium E-Magazines at an Unbeatable Price

A chargesheet was filed on March 17, 2020. The Special Judge under the SC/ST Act subsequently took cognizance and registered the matter as Sessions Case No. 642 of 2022 by order dated August 8, 2022. The appellant challenged the summoning order before the Allahabad High Court under Section 14A(1) of the SC/ST Act.

The High Court dismissed the appeal on April 10, 2023. It held that the allegation that the case had been lodged as a counterblast was by itself insufficient to justify quashing the proceedings. The High Court further concluded that the FIR and witness statements disclosed a prima facie case.

The Supreme Court noted that the dispute had resulted in a cross-case as well. On January 25, 2020, the appellant’s wife lodged FIR No. 39 of 2020 against the complainant, alleging offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC.

According to that FIR, the complainant had allegedly abused and assaulted the appellant’s wife in the school office, following which the appellant intervened and was also assaulted. A chargesheet was subsequently filed against the complainant and cognizance was taken by the Magistrate on December 3, 2020.

The existence of the cross-case formed part of the appellant’s argument before the Supreme Court, although the Court ultimately based its decision primarily on the statutory ingredients of the alleged SC/ST Act offences.

The central question before the Supreme Court was whether the material on record established the essential ingredients of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s), particularly the requirement that the alleged caste-based abuse must have occurred at a place “within public view.”

Section 3(1)(r) covers intentionally insulting or intimidating a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe with intent to humiliate them in any place within public view. Section 3(1)(s) similarly covers abusing a member of an SC/ST community by caste name in any place within public view. Both provisions carry imprisonment of not less than six months, which may extend to five years, along with fine.

The Supreme Court referred to its earlier decisions, including Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and Karuppudayar v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi, Trichy & Others, while examining the expression “within public view.”

The Court reiterated that a place must be open in such a manner that members of the public could witness or hear the alleged utterance. Where the alleged incident occurs within an enclosed space and members of the public are not present, the statutory requirement of “public view” is not satisfied.

Applying that legal test to the facts, the Supreme Court found a significant deficiency in the prosecution material.

The FIR did not state that the alleged caste-based abuses were uttered in the presence or hearing of members of the public. Instead, the prosecution material placed the incident inside a room in the school. The site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer on February 25, 2020 specifically identified the place of occurrence as Room “A”.

The Court noted that the material indicated that the room was enclosed and had no window or public access. Consequently, the prosecution failed to demonstrate that the alleged caste-based utterances were made in circumstances where members of the public could witness or hear them.

The Supreme Court also found that the prosecution material lacked a specific allegation identifying the caste-based words allegedly used by the appellant.

Neither the FIR nor the statement of the complainant attributed any specific caste-based words or slurs to the appellant. The allegation that the complainant had been abused on the basis of his caste remained general in nature.

According to the Court, the material at its highest disclosed a quarrel and scuffle between the parties, but did not disclose any specific caste-based utterance attributable to the appellant.

This finding was important because the Court was not merely examining whether some confrontation had occurred. It was assessing whether the material collected during investigation disclosed the specific statutory ingredients necessary to constitute offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.

The prosecution relied upon statements of four private witnesses—Pradeep Kumar, Soorbeer, Sudha and Pooja Chauhan, all teachers at Krishna Public School.

Their statements broadly described an altercation and scuffle between the complainant and the appellant in the school office. However, none of the witnesses stated that they were present inside the office when the alleged caste-based abuses were uttered or that they actually heard any caste-based words.

The Supreme Court therefore held that merely being present somewhere on the school premises did not establish that the alleged caste-based utterances were made within public view.

The Supreme Court acknowledged that at the stage of taking cognizance, a court is not expected to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence as would be undertaken during trial.

However, this limited scope of examination does not mean that the basic ingredients of the alleged offence can be ignored.

The Court held that the essential ingredients of the offence must emerge from the material placed before the court. In the present case, the statutory requirement concerning “public view” was not borne out by the FIR, site plan or witness statements.

This distinction is significant: while courts ordinarily avoid conducting a detailed evidentiary assessment at the cognizance stage, they must nevertheless examine whether the allegations and investigation material disclose the foundational ingredients of the offence invoked.

The Supreme Court rejected the proposition that an incident occurring within school premises automatically takes place “within public view.”

The Court emphasised that the expression “public view” depends upon whether members of the public could actually witness or hear the alleged utterance. The mere fact that the incident occurred in a school was therefore insufficient.

Here, the FIR and site plan placed the incident inside an enclosed room, while the witness statements did not establish that the witnesses were inside the room or heard the alleged caste-based remarks. The Court consequently held that the essential requirement of “public view” was not satisfied.

Having found that the ingredients of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) were not prima facie established, the Supreme Court held that the summoning order dated August 8, 2022 could not be sustained insofar as those offences were concerned.

The Court accordingly allowed the appeal and set aside the Allahabad High Court’s judgment dated April 10, 2023. The proceedings arising from FIR No. 37 of 2020 were quashed to the extent they related to Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act against the appellant.

The Court expressly directed that the proceedings relating to the remaining IPC offences would continue.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Supreme Court Quashes Gangster Proceedings Against 2 Advocates