Insults qualifying under the SC/ST Act require intention to humiliate based on caste and must occur in public view.

ORDER :

1. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.125 of 2022 registered at the Velloor Police Station for the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('the Act' for short) now pending as S.C.No.695 of 2022 on the files of the Sessions Court Kottayam. The case originated from a complaint filed against the petitioner by the 3^rd respondent. The petitioner is the Principal of the D.B College, Keezhoor, whereas the 3^rd respondent is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Journalism at that college. Briefly put, the allegations in the complaint are as follows:

On 07.02.2022 at 01:30 pm, the petitioner convened a meeting of the staff members of the college to explain the reason for terminating an employee. While addressing the meeting, the petitioner noticed the 3^rd respondent typing on his mobile phone and questioned the 3^rd respondent about his action. Thereupon the 3^rd respondent answered that he was typing down what the petitioner was saying on his mobile phone. Infuriated by the reply, the petitioner shouted that the 3^rd respondent was indulging in such acts because of his manufacturing defect. When the petitioner finished addressing the gathering, the 3^rd respondent stood up and said that he did not have any manufacturing defect as his father was a Panchayat Secretary and mother, an educated woman and both of them had no bad reputation. Thereupon, the petitioner replied that the 3^rd respondent need not narrate his family history, as the petitioner knew the history of the 3^rd respondent as well as his family and if he reveals that, the 3^rd respondent will cut a sorry figure.

2. Heard, Senior Advocate Abraham Vakkanal for the petitioner, Adv.Thomas J Anakkallunkal for the 3^rd respondent and Senior Public Prosecutor M.K.Pushpalatha for the State.

3. Learned Senior Counsel contended that in order to attract the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, the victim should have been humiliated with reference to his Scheduled Caste status. In the absence of such intention the offence under Section 3(1)(r) will not be attracted even if the victim belongs to the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe and felt insulted by the derogatory comment. To buttress the argument, reliance is placed on the decisions in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and Another , (2020) 10 SCC 710 , Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 668 and Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala and Another , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2249. According to the Senior Counsel, the comment that the 3^rd respondent had manufacturing defect has nothing to do with his caste. Further, for attracting the offence under Section 3(1)(r), the remark should have been made in a public place and within public view. Here, the remark was made inside a hall within the college campus where only a closed group of staff members were present. To bolster the argument, reference is made to the decision of the High Court of Karnataka in Rithesh Pais v. State of Karnataka, by Puttur Town P.S. and Another , 2022 SCC OnLine Kar 1676 and that of the Delhi High Court in Daya Bhatnagar and Others v. State , (2004) 109 DLT 915 .

4. Learned Counsel for the 3^rd respondent submitted that the comments were made with the deliberate intention of insulting the 3^rd respondent by reason of his parentage. It is pointed out that the petitioner knows the 3^rd respondent and his family very well and the subsequent remark about his family history was a clear jibe at his caste status. The other issue as to whether the group in which the remarks were made can be termed as members of the public and within public view, are