The Supreme Court has held that casteist remarks made inside a closed room, without the presence or ability of the public to witness or hear them, do not constitute an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The decision came in a case involving a school manager accused of making casteist slurs during a dispute in Uttar Pradesh. The court quashed proceedings under the SC/ST Act, clarifying that the statutory requirement of “public view” was not met.
According to Scroll, the Supreme Court bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta set aside an Allahabad High Court order that had refused to quash the proceedings. The complainant alleged that the school manager and staff assaulted him and used casteist slurs inside a room that was not accessible to the public.
As highlighted by The Observer Post, the Supreme Court examined whether the alleged remarks satisfied the “public view” requirement under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act. The bench observed that for an act to fall within these provisions, members of the public must be in a position to see or hear the incident.
In its reasoning, the court stated that the mere presence of individuals on school premises does not establish that the incident occurred within public view. The bench noted that the FIR did not specifically attribute the casteist remarks to the school manager, and witnesses did not confirm being present during the alleged utterances. Legal analysis further clarified that intent and context are critical in determining liability under the Act.
“If the alleged offence takes place within the four corners of the wall where members of the public are not present, then it cannot be said that it has taken place at a place within public view,” the Supreme Court bench stated.
Midway through the proceedings, coverage revealed that the teachers’ statements only described an altercation and did not confirm hearing any caste-based slurs. The court emphasised that the statutory language requires the insult or humiliation to occur in a setting where it is witnessed by the public, not merely in the presence of other individuals.
The Supreme Court’s decision does not affect other charges in the case, such as rioting or wrongful confinement, which will continue to be adjudicated. The ruling is limited to the interpretation of “public view” under the SC/ST Act, as reporting indicated.
At the end of the judgment, the bench reiterated that the requirement of public view is a necessary element for offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s). The court’s interpretation aligns with previous judicial pronouncements, reinforcing that private utterances, even if offensive, do not automatically attract penal provisions under the Act as details emerged.
“Their mere presence in the school premises, therefore, does not establish that the alleged utterance was made within public view,” the bench concluded.
Note: This article is produced using AI-assisted tools and is based on publicly available information. It has been reviewed by The Quint's editorial team before publishing.