The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a case filed under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against a man, ruling that the alleged incident did not take place in public view.
A bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih clarified that for an offence to be established under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act, it must be proven that the accused deliberately insulted or intimidated a member of an SC or ST community with the intent to humiliate them in a location within public view.
Similarly, for an offence under Section 3(1)(s), it must be shown that the accused used caste-based abuse against the complainant in a setting where the public could witness it.
The bench concluded that, as per the case details, the alleged incident took place within the confines of the complainant’s private chambers. Since it was not a publicly accessible location, the offence did not fall under the purview of either Section 3(1)(r) or 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
The ruling came in response to an appeal challenging a February 2024 Madras High Court decision. The high court had dismissed the petitioner’s request to quash proceedings initiated against him before a trial court in Tiruchirappalli.
The case stemmed from an incident in September 2021, when the appellant had approached the complainant, a revenue inspector, regarding the status of a petition related to his father’s land record. A disagreement allegedly escalated into the use of caste-based slurs by the appellant, leading to an FIR being filed against him.
The chargesheet later framed offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
Seeking relief, the appellant moved the high court to quash the case, arguing that the allegations did not meet the legal criteria under the Act. The high court, however, declined his request, stating that no prejudice would be caused by subjecting him to trial.
However, the Supreme Court held that for a location to qualify as “within public view,” it must be an open space where members of the public can hear or witness the alleged incident.
The court noted that, according to the FIR, the incident occurred in the complainant’s private office, and others entered only after the event had concluded. Given this, the case did not satisfy the legal requirements for an offence under the SC/ST Act.
The apex court ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the Madras High Court’s order, quashing the chargesheet, and terminating all related proceedings.
This decision reaffirms the necessity of meeting legal conditions for invoking the SC/ST Act, particularly regarding the requirement of public view.
Read More: Sarpanch Murder Case: Beed Court Sends Accused Sudarshan Ghule To 14-Day Judicial Custody
