The Allahabad High Court has set aside a cognizance order implicating an individual under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, emphasizing that mere victimhood of a member of the SC/ST community does not automatically implicate the accused under the Act. Justice Sadhna Rani (Thakur) clarified that for the 1989 Act to apply, there must be a demonstrated intention to humiliate the victim on account of their caste.
Also read- Bombay HC: Scope Of SC-ST Not Limited To Person’s Native State (lawchakra.in)
The case involved Seema Bharadwaj, who appealed against the cognizance order of the Special Judge SC/ST Act, Ghaziabad. The allegations against Bharadwaj were that she abused, used caste-based slurs, and physically assaulted the complainant, who was employed as a domestic worker by Bharadwaj’s mother. The complainant alleged that Bharadwaj wanted her to quit her job to facilitate Bharadwaj’s takeover of her mother’s property and that Bharadwaj had sent unknown individuals to intimidate her and her mother with casteist insults and threats.
Bharadwaj’s defense contended that she was not present at the scene during the incident and that the allegations involving unknown individuals could not be attributed to her. Furthermore, it was argued that the complainant was being used as a pawn by Bharadwaj’s brother to pressure her into relinquishing her share of the property.
The High Court, referencing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hitesh Verma vs. the State of Uttarakhand and Another, stated that the SC-ST Act does not apply simply because the complainant is a member of the SC/ST community; there must be intent to humiliate based on caste. The Court noted that the FIR did not indicate that the incident occurred due to the complainant’s SC/ST status but rather due to a personal motive related to employment.
Also read- Is Extending SC/ST Reservation In Lok Sabha And State Assemblies Valid? (lawchakra.in)
The Court criticized the trial court’s order for not reflecting a judicial mindset, as it failed to establish the appellant’s presence at the crime scene.
“So the cognizance under section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act against the appellant is not possible. If the cognizance had been taken under section 120-B I.P.C. along with other sections then the position would have been different,”
the Court added.
The High Court directed the trial court to issue a fresh order after considering the discussion within two months. The appeal was thus allowed, with Nipun Singh and Vivek Chaubey representing the appellant and G.A. Atharva Dixit for the respondent.
The case, titled “Seema Bharadwaj vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 (AB) 427 [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. – 7821 of 2023]”, marks a significant interpretation of the SC/ST Act, focusing on the necessity of proving intent to discriminate based on caste for the Act’s provisions to be invoked.
Also read- Delhi High Court Rejects Plea Against Chhath Puja Ban On Yamuna Banks (lawchakra.in)
