The Supreme Court held that merely mentioning a caste name without intent to insult does not attract the SC/ST Act. It said allegations must show caste-based abuses or that the caste name was hurled as an abuse, in fact.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court ruled that simply using or mentioning a caste name without the intent to belittle does not amount to an offense under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, while quashing ongoing criminal proceedings.
A bench consisting of Justices JB Pardiwala and Alok Aradhe heard the matter.
The bench remarked,
“What appears from the aforesaid is the element of humiliation is present in Section 3(1)(s) as well. It has to be gathered from the intentional insult towards the caste, and the content. The content under Section 3(1)(s) are the abuses hurled at a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. However, the intent with which the abuses were hurled must be found to be denigrating towards the caste, resulting into a feeling of caste-based humiliation.”
The Court added,
“In other words, to constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(s) it would be necessary that the accused abuses a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe “by the caste name” in any place within public view. Thus, the allegations must reveal that abuses were laced with caste name, or the caste name had been hurled as an abuse.”
An appeal was filed challenging a Patna High Court order that dismissed the appellant’s attempt to contest the legality of cognizance and a summoning order made by the trial court. On the day of the incident, the original First Informant was seated with a friend at an Aanganwadi Center in Santhali Tola when the appellant and others reportedly used derogatory language towards him, including caste-based insults.
Following this, the Informant filed an FIR, prompting an investigation and a chargesheet. On October 9, 2020, a Special Judge in Bhagalpur acknowledged multiple offenses under the Indian Penal Code and the SC/ST Act, 1989.
Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the High Court under Section 14A of the SC/ST Act, but the court declined to quash the prosecution, leading the appellant to approach the Supreme Court.
The Court first assessed whether the necessary elements for an offense under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act were present in the FIR and chargesheet.
It stated,
“Section 3(1)(r) is attracted where the reason for the intentional insult or intimidation by the accused is that the person who is subjected to is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. In other words, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) cannot stand merely on the fact that the informant/complainant is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, unless the insult or intimidation is with the intention to humiliate such a member of the community.”
The Court observed two key points:
- Merely being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe is insufficient;
- Any insult or intimidation must be linked to the individual’s membership in these communities.
The Court specified that mere awareness of the complainant’s status does not satisfy Section 3(1)(r).
It further clarified that for an offense to be established under Section 3(1)(s), both insulting a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and the use of a caste name alone are not enough to constitute an offense.
In this case, the Court determined that the allegations against the appellant in the FIR lacked essential elements of any relevant offenses and were largely vague. The mere presence of the appellant did not confirm his involvement in the alleged crime.
Consequently, the Court permitted the appeal and set-aside the High Court’s order, thereby quashing the criminal proceedings against the Appellant.
AOR Preetika Dwivedi represented the Appellant, while AOR Samir Ali Khan appeared for the Respondents.
Case Title: Keshaw Mahto@ Keshaw Kumar Mahto v. State of Bihar & Anr. ,SLP(Crl.) 72999/2025
Read Attachment
Click Here to Read More Reports On SC/ST Act