SC-ST Act misuse: Supreme Court's BIG decision for fair trial, says casteist slurs away from public not an offence
Supreme Court observed while quashing a case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against a person who was accused of hurling caste-based abuses upon a Scheduled Caste person.
by Zee Media Bureau · Zee NewsIn a landmark observation that could reduce the misuse of the SC-ST Act, the Supreme Court on Monday said that a casteist slur inside a private home and outside public gaze does not constitute an offence under SC/ST Act. The apex court observed while quashing a case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against a person who was accused of hurling caste-based abuses upon a Scheduled Caste person, reported Live Law.
“…to make out the offence under Section 3(1)(r) and/or Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, the occurrence of the incident and the act and conduct of hurling of caste-based abuses must take place at a place within public view. It must be a place within the public gaze. Even if it happens to be a private place, then in such an eventuality, the public eye must have access to be able to notice what happens there or what is taking place that will only make the 'place within public view'," observed a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria.
This way, the apex court made it clear that even a private place may qualify as being within public view if members of the public are able to witness the incident.
The Court was hearing a plea seeking the quashing of an FIR and criminal proceedings initiated against four members of a family in Delhi over allegations of caste-based abuse and criminal intimidation linked to a property dispute.
Notably, the case pertains to an alleged incident where the accused attempted to break into the complainant's house and hurled casteist slurs like chura, chamar, harijan etc against him and his wife. According to the report, the complainant and two of the accused were real brothers belonging to a Scheduled Caste community, while the wives of the accused belonged to non-SC/ST communities.
Also Read: Supreme Court judges strength to go from 34 to 38; Cabinet clears proposal for expansion
Earlier, the trial court had framed charges under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act in the case. The case also included charges under Section 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC against all the accused. The accused had then approached the Delhi High Court seeking relief but the HC had refused to interfere with the order framing charges.
The accused appellants then moved to the Supreme Court and argued that the FIR itself failed to disclose the essential ingredient that the alleged incident occurred 'within public view', as required under the SC/ST Act. The Supreme Court took congnisance of the appeal and found that the alleged incident had taken place inside the complainant's house, and not in a public location.