The Supreme Court on Thursday held that casteist remarks that are made inside a closed room without the presence of the public or without their ability to witness or hear them do not constitute an offense under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The Supreme Court decision follows a case that involved a school manager in Uttar Pradesh who allegedly made casteist slurs amidst a dispute.
The court set aside the proceedings under the SC/ST Act, ruling that the mandatory condition of the incident occurring within “public view” was not met.
The Supreme Court bench led by Justices Vikran Nath and Sandeep Mehta quashed an Allahabad High Court order that refused to set aside the proceedings. It was alleged that the school manager and staff assaulted the complainant inside a room. Notably, the room was not accessible to the public.
According to the Live Law, the complainant in the FIR reported that he went to meet the school manager on January 24, 2020, following his son’s injury resulting from a dispute with other students. The complainant further alleged that the school manager, along with other staff, assaulted him with lathis and hurled casteist slurs at him.
The Supreme Court further scrutinized whether the alleged remarks come under the “public view” requirement under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act. The court said that for an assault to come under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act, the public must be posting to witness or hear the incident.
Section 3(1)(r) of the Act provides punishment for a person who does not belong to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe to intentionally insult or humiliate a member hailing from that community in a place that is in public view.
The court said that only the presence of persons on school premises does not make the incident occur in the public view. The court also highlighted that the FIR does not specifically mention the casteist slurs that were attributed to the school manager.
The Supreme Court said that a place is considered “within public view” when the individuals from the public can witness or hear the alleged casteist remarks.
“If the alleged offense takes place within the four corners of the wall where members of the public are not present, then it cannot be said that it has taken place at a place within public view,” the court said as per Scroll.
