The Allahabad High Court held that simply referring to a person’s profession does not amount to an offence under the SC/ST Act unless there is clear intent to humiliate on the basis of caste. The Court quashed SC/ST charges in a wage dispute case but allowed IPC offences to continue.
The Allahabad High Court has recently clarified that simply referring to a person’s profession does not automatically amount to an offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act unless there is clear intention to insult or humiliate the person because of their caste.
In a significant order dated February 24, 2026, Justice Anil Kumar-X partly allowed an appeal filed by Harshit @ Honey and quashed criminal proceedings under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in a case that arose out of a wage dispute between a domestic worker and her employer. However, the Court allowed other criminal charges under the IPC to continue.
The case was an appeal filed under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST Act. It challenged a summoning order dated August 9, 2024, passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gautam Budh Nagar. The original case was registered at Police Station Jewar in Gautam Budh Nagar district.
ALSO READ: Caste-Based Abuse Over Phone Does Not Attract SC/ST Act: Calcutta High Court
According to the facts placed before the Court, the complainant worked as a washerwoman for the appellant. The dispute began when she demanded her pending wages. She alleged that during this argument, she was abused, harassed, and that caste-related words were used against her. The prosecution’s case was that the altercation took place when she asked for payment for her work.
The Investigating Officer had earlier examined the matter and found the allegations in the FIR to be false. A final report was submitted under Section 173(2) of the CrPC. However, the complainant filed a protest petition against the police report. The trial court converted this protest petition into a complaint case and issued summons against the accused, including under Sections 3(1)(Da) and 3(1)(Dha) of the SC/ST Act.
The appellant argued before the High Court that the trial court made a serious procedural mistake. He submitted that the court converted the protest petition into a complaint without first clearly accepting or rejecting the final report filed by the police. Relying on an earlier decision of a coordinate bench, he contended that the trial court was required to expressly disagree with the final report before proceeding further.
On the other hand, the State and the complainant opposed the appeal. They argued that once the protest petition had been converted into a complaint and statements had been recorded, the accused could not challenge the earlier order of conversion. They also maintained that the complainant had specifically alleged harassment and caste-based abuse when she demanded her wages.
While examining the procedural issue, the High Court observed that although a court must disagree with a final report before converting a protest petition into a complaint, it is not necessary to write a specific recital stating such disagreement. The Court explained that if a court proceeds to convert a protest petition into a complaint, it automatically means that the final report has not been accepted.
The Court then examined the facts of the case in detail. It noted that there was a clear contractual relationship between the parties, as the complainant was working as a washerwoman for the appellant. The dispute arose purely out of her demand for unpaid wages.
Importantly, the Court observed that the complainant had mentioned that words indicating her profession were used during the argument. However, the bench clarified that merely referring to someone’s profession does not automatically attract the provisions of the SC/ST Act. For an offence under Sections 3(1)(Da) and 3(1)(Dha) of the Act to be made out, there must be material to show that the words were intentionally used to insult or humiliate the victim on the basis of caste.
Since there was no clear material to show such intentional humiliation based on caste, the Court held that the necessary ingredients of the offences under the SC/ST Act were not satisfied. As a result, it set aside the summoning order to the extent it related to Sections 3(1)(Da) and 3(1)(Dha) of the Act.
However, the Court made it clear that the other criminal charges would continue. The proceedings under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC (corresponding to Sections 115, 352 and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) were allowed to proceed before the trial court in accordance with law.
With this ruling, the Allahabad High Court has once again highlighted that for invoking the strict provisions of the SC/ST Act, there must be clear evidence of intentional caste-based humiliation, and not merely a reference to a person’s occupation during a personal or contractual dispute.
Case Title:
Harshit @ Honey vs. State of U.P. and Another
Click Here to Read the Judgement
Click Here to Read More Reports on SC/ST Act
