The Bombay High Court Yesterday (Nov 29) upheld the closure of a case against a woman who had been booked under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) on allegations that she had sent casteist messages to her ex-boyfriend while ending a romantic relationship.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Friday upheld the dismissal of a case against a woman accused under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). The case revolved around allegations that the woman had sent casteist messages to her former partner while ending their romantic relationship.
Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke, presiding over the matter, noted that the WhatsApp messages exchanged between the woman and her ex-boyfriend largely consisted of forwarded messages about caste reservation.
The Court emphasized that these messages expressed personal views and did not promote enmity or hatred towards members of Scheduled Castes (SC) or Scheduled Tribes (ST).
“On going through the entire material, it reveals that messages only show feelings expressed as to Caste Reservation System. Such messages nowhere show that there was any attempt to promote any enmity or hatred or ill-will against members of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes … At the most, it can be said that her target was just the complainant only. However, accused No.1 did not write any word which would create or promote any ill-will or enmity or hatred against members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes,”
-the Court said.
The dispute involved a 29-year-old software engineer and his 28-year-old partner, both residents of Nagpur, Madhya Pradesh. The couple reportedly had a secret temple marriage that they chose not to disclose to their families.
However, the relationship soured when the woman allegedly discovered her partner belonged to the Chambhar community, a Scheduled Caste.
The estranged partner later filed a complaint, alleging that the woman sent him derogatory messages that fostered animosity against Scheduled Castes. Additionally, the woman’s father was implicated for allegedly supporting her actions. The trial court discharged both the woman and her father on August 5, 2021, prompting the complainant to file an appeal.
The complainant’s counsel argued that the woman’s messages sought to create hatred and division between communities. On the other hand, the defense maintained that the messages reflected her personal sentiments on caste reservation and lacked any offensive content targeting SC/ST communities.
Furthermore, the defense highlighted the delay in filing the complaint, questioning the complainant’s motives.
Justice Joshi-Phalke reiterated the intent of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to protect the socio-economic status and dignity of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
“The Atrocities Act has been enacted to improve the socio-economic condition of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and to protect them from various indignities, humiliation, and harassment. The legislation, thus, intends to punish acts committed against vulnerable sections of our society for the reason that they belong to a particular community,”
-she stated.
After a thorough review, the Court concluded that the messages did not meet the legal criteria for an offense under Section 3(1)(u) of the Act, which pertains to promoting ill-will or hatred against SC/ST members.
“Even perusal of the said messages shows that messages express opinion as to the Caste Reservation System. Other messages, only reference of Scheduled Caste is mentioned. Even none of messages talks about any act on the part of accused No.2 (father) showing that there is an attempt to create any hatred or enmity or ill-will regarding the Scheduled Caste,”
-Justice Joshi-Phalke remarked.
The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court’s decision to discharge the woman and her father, asserting that the evidence did not substantiate the allegations under the SC/ST Act.
- Advocate S. Sonwane represented the complainant (appellant).
- Additional Public Prosecutor Nitin Autkar appeared for the State.
- Advocate R.K. Tiwari defended the accused woman and her father.
This judgment underscores the judiciary’s role in distinguishing personal views from actions that genuinely propagate hatred or discrimination against marginalized communities.
CASE TITLE:
W v State of Maharashtra
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on SC/ST Act
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
