IMPORTANT POINT
Honour killings and Khap Panchayats are wholly illegal.

Headnote:(a) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 – Section 3(1)(x) – Uses of the Tamil words ‘pallan’, ‘pallapayal’ ‘parayan’ or ‘paraparayan’ with intent to insult is highly objectionable and is also an offence under the Act – Care must be taken not to insult anyone’s feelings on account of his caste, religion, tribe, language, etc. (Para 10)
        Crl. Appeal No. 11/2011; (2008) 12 SCR 132 – Relied upon
        (b) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 – Section 3(1)(x) – The two tumbler system is highly objectionable and is an offence under the Act. (Para 14)
        (2006) 5 SCC 475 – Relied upon
        (c) Honour Killing – Khap Panchayat – There is nothing honourable in honour killing or other atrocities – In fact, it is nothing but barbaric and shameful murder. (Para 16)
       (2006) 5 SCC 475 – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
        1. On 1.7.1999, there was an altercation between the appellants and the complainants PW1 Panneerselvam and PW2 Mahamani in a Temple Festival regarding the method of tying bullocks in the Jallikattu.
        2. The appellant then insulted PW1 by saying “you are a pallapayal and eating deadly cow beef”. Then accused 1, 7 and 9 attacked PW1 with sticks causing him injuries on his left shoulder. When PW2 Mahamani intervened he was attacked by the accused with sticks, and he sustained a fracture on his head, on which there was a lacerated wound.
        3. Both the Courts below have believed the prosecution case.
       Finding of the Court:
        Discrimination on the ground of caste is illegal and punishable. Similarly, honor killing is barbaric and illegal.
       Result : Appeal dismissed. Directions issued.

JUDGMENT

Markandey Katju, J. —

“Har zarre par ek qaifiyat-e-neemshabi hai Ai saaki-e-dauraan yeh gunahon ki ghadi hai” — Firaq Gorakhpuri

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator by certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”

- American Declaration of Independence, 1776

1. Over two centuries have passed since Thomas Jefferson wrote those memorable words, which are still ringing in history, but a large section of Indian society still regard a section of their own countrymen as inferior. This mental attitude is simply unacceptable in the modern age, and it is one of the main causes holding up the country’s progress.

2. Leave granted.

3. These appeals have been filed against the common judgment and order of the Madras High Court dated 25.1.2008 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 536-37 of 2001 upholding the judgment of the Leaned 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.

4. The allegation against the appellants is that on 1.7.1999, there was an altercation between the appellants and the complainants PW1 Panneerselvam and PW2 Mahamani in a Temple Festival regarding the method of tying bullocks in the Jallikattu. The appellant Arumugam Servai then insulted PW1 by saying “you are a pallapayal and eating deadly cow beef”. Then accused 1, 7 and 9 attacked PW1 with sticks causing him injuries on his left shoulder. When PW2 Mahamani intervened he was attacked by the accused with sticks, and he sustained a fracture on his head, on which there was a lacerated wound.

5. Apart from the two injured eye-witnesses, there are 3 other eye-witnesses to the occurrence. The doctor has testified to the injuries. The head fracture on Mahamani indicates the deadly intent of the accused.

6. Both the Courts below have believed the prosecution case, and we see no reason to differ. We have carefully perused the testimony of the witnesses, and we see no reason to disbelieve them.

7. The accused belong to the ‘servai’ caste which is a backward caste, whereas the complainants belong to the ‘pallan’ caste which is a Scheduled Caste in Tamilnadu.

8. The word ‘pallan’ no doubt denotes a specific caste, but it is also a word used in a derogatory sense to insult someone (just as in North India the word ‘chamar’ denotes a specific caste, but it is also used in a derogatory sense to insult someone). Even calling a person a ‘pallan’, if used with intent to insult a member of the Scheduled Caste, is, in our opinion, an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SC/ST Act’). To call a person as a ‘pallapayal’ in Tamilnadu is even more insulting, and hence is even more an offence.

9. Similarly, in Tamilnadu there is a caste called ‘parayan’ but the word ‘parayan’ is also used in a derogatory sense. The word ‘paraparayan’ is even more derogatory.

10. In our opinion uses of the words ‘pallan’, ‘pallapayal’ ‘parayan’ or ‘paraparayan’ with intent to insult is highly objectionable and is also an offence under the SC/ST Act. It is just unacceptable in the modern age, just as the words ‘Nigger’ or ‘Negro’ are unacceptable for African-Americans today (even if they were acceptable 50 years ago).

11. In the present case, it is obvious that the word ‘pallapayal’ was used by accused No. 1 to insult Paneerselvam. Hence, it was clearly an offence under the SC/ST Act.

12. In the modern age nobody’s feelings should be hurt. In particular in a country like India with so much diversity (see in this connection the decision of this Court in Kailas vs. State of Maharashtra in1 Crl. Appeal No. 11/2011 decided on 5.1.2011) we must take care not to insult anyone’s feelings on account of his caste, religion, tribe, language, etc. Only then can we keep our country united and strong.

13. In Swaran Singh & Ors. vs. State thr’ Standing Counsel & Anr.2 (2008) 12 SC