The Supreme Court recently stated that using foul/abusive language against a member of SC/ST would not be enough to file a case against a person under the SC/ST Act.
Therefore, the top court stated, the remarks made have to be casteist in nature and to prosecute a person under the SC/ST Act.
The bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta made the observation while dealing with a matter in which a person was charge-sheeted for alleged offenses, under section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act that deals with voluntary insults with the aim to humiliate a member of an SC/ST in any place within public view.
Further, the bench stated, “The legislative intent seems to be clear that every insult or intimidation for humiliation to a person would not amount to an offense under section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act unless, of course, such insult or intimidation is targeted at the victim because of he being a member of a particular Scheduled Caste or Tribe. If one calls another an idiot (bewaqoof) or a fool (murkh) or a thief (chor) in any place within public view, this would obviously constitute an act intended to insult or humiliate by the user of abusive or offensive language. Even if the same be directed generally to a person, who happens to be a Scheduled Caste or Tribe, per se, it may not be sufficient to attract section 3(1)(x) unless such words are laced with casteist remarks.”
The bench said it is desirable that remarks made by an accused within public view are outlined at least in the charge sheet before the person is subjected to trial under a provision of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act of 1989.
The supreme court mentioned that this will enable courts to find out whether the charge sheet makes out a case under the SC/ST Act, prior to taking cognizance of the offense.
The court quashed the case lodged against the person under the Act, stating that neither the FIR nor the chargesheet in the case would make reference to the observation of the accused during the verbal argument, nor the caste to which the complainant was belonged to.
Therefore, the court noted that the alleged abusive remarks were made in the existence of the complainant, his wife and son, with no other person present so it can’t be said to be in public view as no member of the public was present there.
