A Buddhist is not a member of a Scheduled Caste for the purposes of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955.

Headnote:
PROTECTION OF CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 1955 - SECTION 7 - SECTION 12 - A BUDDHIST IS NOT A MEMBER OF A SCHEDULED CASTE FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT - THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT CANNOT BE INVOKED AGAINST A BUDDHIST.
Fact of the Case:

The accused were convicted under section 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 for insulting the complainant and others of his community on the ground of untouchability. The accused challenged the conviction on the ground that the complainant was not a member of a Scheduled Caste but a Buddhist. The Sessions Court remanded the case for fresh hearing to determine whether the complainant was a member of a Scheduled Caste.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that a Buddhist is not a member of a Scheduled Caste for the purposes of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. The Court found that the complainant was a Buddhist and, therefore, the provisions of the Act could not be invoked against the accused.
Issues: Whether a Buddhist is a member of a Scheduled Caste for the purposes of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the definition of "Scheduled Castes" in the Act includes only those persons who profess the Hindu or the Sikh religion and who belong to the castes, races or tribes therefrom or groups within castes, races or tribes therefrom and so notified by the President by virtue of his powers under Article 341 of the Constitution. The Court found that the President had not notified Buddhism as a caste or race covered by the aforesaid order. Therefore, a Buddhist or one professing Buddhism does not belong to a Scheduled Caste within the meaning of the Act.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the order of remand passed by the Sessions Court, and acquitted the accused.

JUDGMENT - S.C. PRATAP, J.:---The short but cardinal question around which the fate of the instant prosecution under section 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 ( hereafter briefly, the Act) ultimately revolves is whether a Buddhist is a member of a Scheduled Caste for the purposes of the said Act ?

2. The prosecution case, abbreviated to essentials, is as follows :---

On 4th March, 1977 at about 7 p.m., there was at village Bhalavali in Ratnagiri district, a palanquin procession. After its completion, several villagers, including the complainant herein and others, gathered in front of the house of one Parasharam Kelkar, the father of accused Nos. 1 and 2, to witness the play before the said palanquin. Soon thereafter, Mangala and Nandakumar (accused Nos. 1 and 2 ) came out of the house and insulted the complainant and others of his community telling them that they had become Buddhists, had stopped playing bands, had instead started dancing before and watching the palanquin and they should, therefore, leave. On 10th March, 1977, the complainant with others made an application to the local police stating that the aforesaid incident had resulted in injustice to the Buddhist community. On 3rd April, 1977, the complainant by another application reiterated that the above incident had caused injustice to him and other members of the Buddhist community.

3. The accused were thereupon prosecuted under section 7 of the Act. Rejecting the defence of denial and holding the prosecution charge proved. the trial Magistrate convicted the accused under the said section 7 and sentenced them to r.i. for three months each and a fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default further r.i. for two weeks each.

4. This order of their conviction and sentence was challenged by the accused in Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 1977 to the Sessions Court, Ratnagiri. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that to the facts of the present case the provisions of section 7(1)(c) of the said Act would not apply and the contention of the accused in that behalf was well-founded. Their equally important second contention viz., that the complainant and others, to whom the accused were alleged to have spoken the insulting words on the ground of untouchability, were not members of a Scheduled Castes but persons professing Buddhism and, therefore, no offence was committed even under section 7(1)(d) of the said Act was, however, not finally accepted but setting aside the Magistrates order of conviction and sentence, the case was remanded for fresh hearing with opportunity to the accused to lead evidence and establish that the complainant was not a member of a Scheduled Caste. Hence this revision application in support whereof I have heard Mr. Vilas V. Kamat, the learned Advocate for the petitioners-accused. The State is represented by Mr. M.D. Gangakhedkar, the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. I find it extremely difficult to uphold and sustain the impugned order based on a misconception of the legal position. The legal as also the constitutional position involved is indeed clear. Moreover, section 12 of the Act has also no relevance hereto consequently, question of raising presumption enacted therein does not survive.

6. In this context, it would be useful to turn attention at the outset to section 12 of the Act:

Section 12 : " Where any act constituting an offence under this Act is committed in relation to a member of a Scheduled Caste, the Court shall presume, unless the contrary is proved, that such act was committed on the ground of " untouchability."

Obvious position thus is that the aforesaid presumption applies vis-a-vis only a member of a Scheduled Caste. The term "Scheduled Castes" is defined in Clause (db) of section 2 of the said Act as having.

"the meaning assigned to it in Clause (24) of Article 366 of the Constitution."

Turning next to the said Clause (24) of Article 366 of the Constitution, (which incidentally, is also a definition article) one finds the sam

Click Here to Read the rest of this document