REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO._958__of 2011

[Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No. 8084 of 2009]

Arumugam Servai

.. Appellant (s)

-versus-

State of Tamil Nadu

.. Respondent

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 959 of 2011

[Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 8428 of 2009]

Ajit Kumar and others

.. Appellant (s)

-versus-

State of Tamil Nadu

.. Respondent

J U D G M E N T

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 4^th 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 ‘pal