The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that allegedly casteist remarks made inside a closed room, where members of the public were neither present nor able to hear them, do not by themselves constitute an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta set aside an Allahabad High Court order that had refused to quash proceedings under the SC/ST Act against a school manager.
The court was examining allegations that the manager had abused a man with casteist slurs during a dispute at a school in Uttar Pradesh.
What Happened at the School?
According to the FIR, the complainant had gone to meet the school manager on January 24, 2020, after his son was injured in a quarrel with other students.
He alleged that the manager and other school staff assaulted him with sticks and used casteist slurs against him.
A case was registered the following day under provisions relating to rioting, causing hurt, wrongful confinement and intentional insult, along with Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
The school manager later approached the Allahabad High Court, arguing that the alleged casteist remarks were made inside a closed room identified as room “A”. According to his lawyer, the room had no window and was not accessible or visible to the public.
The Allahabad High Court refused to quash the proceedings in April 2023, following which the manager approached the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Explains ‘Public View’ Requirement
Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act deal with intentional insult, humiliation and caste-based abuse against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes when such acts take place “within public view.”
The Supreme Court said the requirement means that members of the public must be in a position to see or hear the alleged act or remarks.
“If the alleged offence 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 bench observed.
The court also noted that simply being on school premises does not establish that an incident occurred within public view.
Witnesses Did Not Hear Alleged Casteist Remarks
The bench found that the FIR did not specifically attribute the alleged casteist remarks to the school manager.
It also noted that the teachers who gave statements spoke about an “altercation and scuffle”, but did not say that they were present when the alleged caste-based remarks were made or that they had heard them.
“Their mere presence in the school premises, therefore, does not establish that the alleged utterance was made within public view,” the court said.
The Supreme Court consequently quashed the proceedings against the school manager under the SC/ST Act.
Other Criminal Charges Will Continue
The court, however, made it clear that its order did not end the entire criminal case.
Proceedings concerning the other alleged offences will continue, meaning the school manager can still face prosecution on charges unrelated to the SC/ST Act.
The ruling therefore focuses specifically on the legal requirement of “public view” under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s), holding that an alleged casteist remark made in a private, enclosed setting does not satisfy that requirement unless it is shown that members of the public could see or hear it.
