Justice Birendra Kumar dropped SC/ST Act charges against four men accused of using these terms against public servants during a land encroachment inspection.
Rajasthan: The Rajasthan High Court recently ruled that terms such as ‘Bhangi,’ ‘Neech,’ ‘Bhikhari,’ and ‘Mangani’ (beggar, lowly person, etc.) are not caste-specific and their use does not attract charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act).
Justice Birendra Kumar dropped SC/ST Act charges against four men accused of using these terms against public servants during a land encroachment inspection.
The Court clarified that the words used neither referenced any caste nor suggested an intent to humiliate the public servants based on caste.
Justice Kumar noted,
“The words used were not caste names, nor is there any allegation that the petitioners knew the caste of the public servants. It is evident from the allegations that the petitioners’ actions were protests against the officials’ measurements rather than acts of caste-based humiliation.”
The incident, from January 2011, involved officials visiting Jaisalmer to inspect alleged public land encroachments. The petitioners allegedly obstructed the inspection and verbally abused the officials. Charges were framed under Sections 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant), 332 (hurt to deter public servant), and 34 (common intention) of the IPC, as well as Section 3(1)(X) of the SC/ST Act.
Although the police initially dismissed the allegations as unsubstantiated, a protest petition led to charges being framed by a trial court. The accused then approached the High Court to quash the case.
The petitioners’ counsel argued that the charges under the SC/ST Act lacked evidence, as the petitioners were unaware of the informant’s caste and there were no independent witnesses to confirm the incident occurred in public view. The Court found merit in these arguments, observing that the allegations lacked the required elements of caste-based insult or intimidation in public view.
In its November 12 order, the Court discharged the petitioners from the SC/ST Act charges but upheld charges under Sections 353 and 332 of the IPC, citing sufficient grounds to proceed with trial.
Justice Kumar stated,
“While there is a prima facie allegation that the petitioners obstructed public servants in the discharge of their official duties, criminal prosecution on these charges will continue.”
Case Title: Achal Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
