Allahabad High Court ruled caste reference alone is not offence under SC/ST Act 1989 without intent. Court held absence of insult or intimidation negates offence, warning misuse of law.
The Allahabad High Court has delivered a significant ruling clarifying the scope of offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court held that merely referring to a person by their caste, in the absence of any intention to insult, humiliate, or intimidate, would not by itself constitute an offence under the Act.
Explaining its reasoning, the Court observed that the law requires a clear element of intent. If a caste reference is made without any deliberate attempt to demean or threaten the individual, the essential ingredients of the offence are not fulfilled. In such circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings under the SC/ST Act would amount to an abuse of the statutory framework.
The ruling was delivered by Justice Madan Pal Singh while partly allowing a criminal appeal filed by Amay Pandey and three others. The Court set aside the summoning order issued by the trial court against the appellants in July 2025, thereby quashing proceedings under the SC/ST Act. However, it clarified that prosecution under the Indian Penal Code would continue in accordance with law.
The case traces back to a First Information Report registered in 2019, arising out of an alleged altercation during a wedding function. Initially, the FIR was lodged against unknown persons and referred to a general incident of assault, without mentioning any caste-based abuse. The appellants later approached the High Court seeking quashing of both the summoning order and the ongoing trial proceedings.
Counsel for the appellants argued that the prosecution story was inconsistent and had been subsequently altered with mala fide intent. It was pointed out that allegations of caste-based abuse were introduced only at a later stage during the complainant’s statement, along with claims that the accused were identified through CCTV footage. The defence contended that such material improvements in the version cast serious doubt on the credibility of the prosecution.
It was further argued that the medical evidence did not support the allegations of serious assault, as the injuries recorded were minor in nature. According to the defence, this indicated exaggeration of the incident. They also emphasised that there was no material to show that the alleged acts were committed on account of the complainant belonging to a Scheduled Castes community an essential requirement for invoking the SC/ST Act.
Opposing the appeal, the State submitted that at the stage of summoning, the material on record including the chargesheet was sufficient to proceed, and that it could not be conclusively said that no offence under the SC/ST Act was made out.
After examining the submissions and the record, the Court noted prima facie inconsistencies between the FIR and subsequent statements. It highlighted that the original complaint did not contain any allegation of caste-based abuse and did not assign specific roles to the accused. The Court also took note of the minor nature of injuries reflected in the medical reports.
Taking these factors together, along with the apparent background of a personal dispute, the Court found that the allegations under the SC/ST Act were not adequately supported. It observed that the material on record failed to demonstrate that the acts complained of were carried out with the intention of humiliating or intimidating the complainant on the basis of caste.
Reiterating the legal position, the Court underscored that, for an offence under the SC/ST Act to be made out, there must be prima facie evidence of intentional insult or intimidation directed specifically at the victim because of their caste identity, and that such acts must occur in a public setting.
In conclusion, the Court held that mere verbal exchanges or involvement in a physical dispute, without the requisite caste-based intent, would fall outside the ambit of the stringent provisions of the SC/ST Act.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE