IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Dhandapani, J.
V.Varun Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
P.Thamizhselvan - Respondent
W.P. NO. 30536 OF 2025 and W.M.P. NOS.34229 & 34253 OF 2025
Decided On : 25-11-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint introduction and background (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. argument about lack of prior enmity (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. jurisdiction assessment of sc/st commission (Para 5 , 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. counterarguments regarding complaint legitimacy (Para 7 , 10 , 12) |
| 5. analysis of jurisdictional issues and public view requirement (Para 11 , 15) |
| 6. interpretation of 'public view' standard (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 7. assessment of complaint maintainability criteria (Para 22 , 24 , 25) |
| 8. conclusion on misuse of sc/st act provisions (Para 26 , 28 , 30) |
ORDER :
M. Dhandapani, J.
Assailing the Petition No.169/2024 dated 14.02.2024 filed before the State Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes Commission in and by which, the 1st respondent had lodged a complaint against the petitioners who are alleged to have castigated the 1st respondent by using his caste name, the present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners.
2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this Writ Petition are as follows:
It is the case of the petitioners that, the 1st respondent herein alleged a property dispute with one Kannan and others and claimed that when he lodged a complaint as against those persons on 05.02.2024, the petitioners threatened and humiliated him by calling him by his caste name. He further alleged that these acts of the petitioners were intended only to pressure him to refrain him from pursuing registration of FIR against certain police officers in connection with the proceedings before the State Human rights Commission (SHRC). In the said complaint, he also referred to the registration of Crime No.26 of 2024 registered against him and his driver namely Madhavan for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 451, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(2) of IPC and Section 4 of TNPHW Act , 2022 on the basis of a complaint made by one Karuppayee aged about 97 years and claimed that the actions amounted to caste-based atrocities, as he belongs to Scheduled Caste, leading him to file a petition before the Tamil Nadu State SC/ST Commission. Aggrieved by the said petition, which has been taken cognizance of, the petitioners have come up with the present Writ Petition.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that, admittedly, there is no previous enmity between the petitioners and the 1st respondent and that earlier, there was a civil dispute between the 1st respondent and one Kannan and one Kavitha in respect of which, the said Kannan filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.118 of 2019 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Thuraiyur which came to be dismissed on 01.12.2023. It is further submitted that, there was also a dispute between the 1st respondent and said Kannan with regard to measurement of the suit property pursuant to which, the 1st respondent lodged a complaint before the 3rd petitioner, who refused to receive the same. Thereafter, the 1st respondent made a complaint before the 2nd petitioner, which was also refused. Aggrieved by the non- registration of the complaint by the 2nd and 3rd petitioners, the 1st respondent approached the 1st petitioner alleging that petitioners 2 & 3 had humiliated him by using his caste name. Based on the said allegations, on 13.03.2024, 1st respondent made a complaint before the State Human Rights Commission and thereafter, lodged a complaint before the 2nd respondent, the Tamil Nadu SC/ST Commission seeking action against the petitioners under Section 8 of the Act.
4. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that, even a bare perusal of the complaint lodged by the 1st respondent against petitioners before the State Human Rights Commission and the 2nd respondent reveals that the said complaint is a motivated one as the complaint lodged before the State Human Rights Commission does not contain any allegation relating to caste based-abuse as alleged by the 1st respondent. However, such an allegation has been subsequently introduced in the complaint filed before the 2nd respondent. Therefore the impugned complain
Caste-related insult must occur in public view to constitute an offense under the SC/ST Act, rendering complaints without such evidence unmaintainable.
Mere allegations without evidence of public view do not constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act unless insults target caste identity in a public context.
Sufficient evidence must link alleged acts to an intent to humiliate based on caste identity for the application of the SC/ST Act.
The court clarified the interpretation of 'within public view' in the context of the Atrocities Act, holding that a place can be considered 'within public view' even if it is a private place, provide....
Section 3(1)(r) of the SC and ST Act makes it manifest that mere insult or intimidation with an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe by itself is not made an offence.....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.