The Supreme Court has ruled that caste-based abuse made inside a private residence does not qualify as an offence under the SC/ST Act, emphasizing the mandatory requirement of “public view” in such cases. The judgment partially sets aside a 2025 High Court order.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has partially allowed an appeal arising from an order issued by the Allahabad High Court on July 8, 2025. The case involved summons issued under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, alongside offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Supreme Court quashed the charges under the SC/ST Act after finding that a crucial statutory requirement was not met.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a complaint filed by a woman from a Scheduled Caste community, who worked as a sweeper in a village. She alleged that the appellants abused and assaulted her and later used caste-related insults within her home premises. She applied Section 156(3) CrPC, resulting in the registration of a complaint for offences under:
- Section 323 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt),
- Section 504 IPC (intentional insult), and
- Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act (caste-based abuse within public view).
The Trial Court issued summons on September 12, 2024, which the appellants challenged under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST Act, but the High Court dismissed their appeal, upholding the summoning order.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The central question before the Supreme Court was whether the alleged caste-related abuse satisfied the conditions under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, which requires that the abuse must occur “in any place within public view.”
The Supreme Court noted:
- The complaint itself stated that the alleged caste abuse occurred inside the complainant’s house, not in a public place.
- No statement indicated that unrelated members of the public were present during the incident.
- Therefore, the mandatory element of “public view” was missing.
“The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act are not prima facie satisfied, we deem it appropriate to interfere to that limited extent.”
the Court stated
The Court relied on earlier precedents, including:
- Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020)
- Karuppudayar v. State (2025 INSC 132)
“To be a place ‘within public view’, members of the public should be in a position to witness or hear the utterance.”
Thus, private spaces where only involved parties are present do not constitute public view under the SC/ST Act.
Final Order of the Supreme Court
- Proceedings under Section 3(1)(s) SC/ST Act were quashed.
- The trial will continue for IPC offences (Sections 323 & 504).
- The High Court order was set aside only to the extent of the SC/ST Act charges.
Case Title:
SOHANVIR @ SOHANVIR DHAMA & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
SLP (CRL) NO.14100 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT
Click Here to Read More Reports On SC/ST Act
