Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
The presence of public view is crucial; offences such as calling out caste names inside private spaces without public witnesses are generally not considered offences under the SC/ST Act ["DR.V.VARUN KUMAR I.P.S. vs P.THAMIZHSELVAN M.A. B.L. - Madras"], ["Chhaila Shukla Ramnarayan v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Sushanta Kumar Sahu vs State of Odisha - Orissa"].
The offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act requires that the caste name be used with the intent to humiliate or insult a member of SC/ST in a public place. Mere mention without such intent or outside public view does not constitute an offence.
If such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out when the abuse occurs inside private premises without public witnesses ["Chhaila Shukla Ramnarayan v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another - Madhya Pradesh"].
Courts have emphasized that mentioning a caste name in private or inside a building without public witnesses generally does not amount to an offence under the SC/ST Act unless there is clear evidence of public view and intent to humiliate based on caste.
The alleged incidence of abuse by taking caste name took place in the house of the informant and as such not in public view ["Md. Alim Hussain @ Alim Miya vs The State of Bihar - Patna"].
The presence of witnesses and the specific mention of caste-based abuse in public view are critical for establishing an offence. Without these, allegations are often deemed insufficient to prove the offence under the SC/ST Act.
Analysis and Conclusion:Mentioning caste names within private spaces or without public witnesses, in itself, is not an offence under the SC/ST Act. The law specifically requires that such caste-based abuses occur in public view with intent to humiliate or insult the victim based on caste. Many cases cited confirm that absence of public view or specific intent results in the offence not being made out. The courts consistently emphasize that public visibility and intent are essential elements for prosecution under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.["DR.V.VARUN KUMAR I.P.S. vs P.THAMIZHSELVAN M.A. B.L. - Madras"] ["Chhaila Shukla Ramnarayan v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another - Madhya Pradesh"] ["Sushanta Kumar Sahu vs State of Odisha - Orissa"]
In India, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC-ST Act) is a crucial law aimed at preventing atrocities against marginalized communities. A common question arises: mentioning of caste name in four boundaries is not an offence? This query often stems from disputes where caste references occur in private settings, like inside homes or chambers. While the Act is stringent, courts have consistently ruled that such mentions alone do not trigger offences under key sections if they lack the public view element. This blog explores the legal nuances, backed by judicial precedents, to clarify when a caste mention crosses into criminal territory.
Note: This is general information based on case law and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
The SC-ST Act, particularly Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s), penalizes intentionally insulting or intimidating a Scheduled Caste (SC) or Scheduled Tribe (ST) member within public view. Courts have held that a mere mention of caste within the four walls of a private space, absent public witnessing or hearing, does not qualify as an offence. Karuppudayar VS State Rep. By The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Lalgudi Trichy - 2025 2 Supreme 650
As emphasized, the offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) is not established merely by the mention of caste or abuse in private settings; the location's openness to public witnessing is crucial. Hitesh Verma VS State of Uttarakhand - 2020 6 Supreme 310Karuppudayar VS State Rep. By The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Lalgudi Trichy - 2025 2 Supreme 650
The phrase in any place within public view is pivotal. The Supreme Court in Swaran Singh clarified that an open house gate visible from the street qualifies, but a closed room does not. Karuppudayar VS State Rep. By The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Lalgudi Trichy - 2025 2 Supreme 650 Similarly, Daya Bhatnagar stressed independent, impartial witnesses, not just relatives. Karuppudayar VS State Rep. By The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Lalgudi Trichy - 2025 2 Supreme 650
In another ruling, the court noted: The offence is alleged to have taken place within the four walls of the building... it could not be said that those were the persons present within the four walls. Gangadhar C/o Shivayya Gandadamata vs State of Karnataka - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 279
Even inside buildings, public presence can trigger the offence—if bystanders witness it. However, incidents within the chambers of the complainant, where no public was present, were held not to constitute offences under the SC-ST Act. Karuppudayar VS State Rep. By The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Lalgudi Trichy - 2025 2 Supreme 650Hitesh Verma VS State of Uttarakhand - 2020 6 Supreme 310
A High Court observed: Hence, the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant scolded P.W.1 by calling her caste name in public view. Ponmani vs Deputy Superintendent of Police, Manamadurai - 2025 Supreme(Mad) 2726 This underscores the need for credible, independent proof.
Merely mentioning caste or abusing someone in private, enclosed spaces without public witnesses does not fulfill the statutory requirement. Hitesh Verma VS State of Uttarakhand - 2020 6 Supreme 310 For instance, in property disputes, caste references amid civil wrangles rarely qualify unless public humiliation is proven. Gangadhar C/o Shivayya Gandadamata vs State of Karnataka - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 279
One case highlighted: Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner has not abused him by mentioning his caste name in a public view... Only with an ulterior motive this complaint was lodged. MOHAN SANTHOSH DURAI vs DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE - 2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 9048
Courts have quashed FIRs where: We have scanned the entire record... respondent No.2 has not mentioned that people from public at large were present. Afshamaskar Laikhkan Pathan, @ Afsha Firdos Ujede VS State of Maharashtra - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 47Afshamaskar Laikhkan Pathan, @ Afsha Firdos Ujede Vs The State Of Maharashtra - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 112
Civil disputes often misuse the Act: The complaint failed to establish... particularly the requirement that insults must occur in a public view. Gangadhar C/o Shivayya Gandadamata vs State of Karnataka - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 279
Unless it is alleged that the informant/complainant was insulted... within public view, the offence would not be attracted. Paracha Mohan Rao VS State of A. P. - 2013 Supreme(AP) 495
Generally, mentioning a caste name within the four boundaries of a private space does not constitute an offence under Sections 3(1)(r) or 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act, as it lacks the mandatory public view. This protects against misuse in personal or civil disputes while upholding the Act's intent against public humiliations. Key takeaways:
Stay informed, but seek professional advice for case-specific guidance. References include Karuppudayar VS State Rep. By The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Lalgudi Trichy - 2025 2 Supreme 650, Hitesh Verma VS State of Uttarakhand - 2020 6 Supreme 310, Ponmani vs Deputy Superintendent of Police, Manamadurai - 2025 Supreme(Mad) 2726, Gangadhar C/o Shivayya Gandadamata vs State of Karnataka - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 279, Afshamaskar Laikhkan Pathan, @ Afsha Firdos Ujede VS State of Maharashtra - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 47, and others cited.
#SCSTAct, #PublicView, #CasteAtrocities
Similarly, for constitution an offence under Section 3(1)(s) or the SC-ST Act, it will be necessary that the accused abuse any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view. 10. ... name. ... name. ... name. ... If the alleged offence takes place within the four corners of the wall where members of the public are not present, then it cannot be said that it has taken ....
In other words, if there is a specific averment in the complaint, namely, insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate by calling with caste name, the accused persons are not entitled to anticipatory bail. Underlined by me10. ... Upon the perusal of the contents of the FIR of the case, it is self - evident that the genesis of the crime is not caste - based. ... After referring to the contents of the FIR, he submits that the genesis of the incident is not caste - ba....
Hence, the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant scolded P.W.1 by calling her caste name in public view. Therefore, this Court holds that the offence under Section 3(1)(X) of the SC/ST Act, is not made out against the appellant. 10. ... No independent witnesses, other than the relatives of P.W.1 have been examined to prove the allegation against the appellant that he scolded P.W.1 by calling her caste name in public view. P.W.4 never deposed that th....
of four corners and boundaries of the house. ... of the four boundaries in the application for seeking adjudication and the second was with regard to limitation in ... Thus the objection regarding wrongful entry of four corners and boundaries of the house in the the objection regarding limitation has been addressed, but the second objection has not
In the list of witnesses appended to the charge-sheet, certain witnesses are named but it could not be said that those were the persons present within the four walls of the building. The offence is alleged to have taken place within the four walls of the building. ... humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view (s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place w....
Reeta Devi on 23.12.2020 with certain boundaries. Thereafter, on 20.02.2021, appellant executed another sale in favour of one Rammurti Gupta mentioning the same boundaries. ... (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. ... The appellant does not have any criminal history to his credit. ... (i) The appellant will not tamper with the ....
He would also submit that he has not abused him by mentioning his caste name in a public view. Moreover, he was not aware about the community of petitioner. Only with an ulterior motive this complaint was lodged. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. ... The offence is alleged to have taken place within the four walls of the building. ... If such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence#HL_E....
He would also submit that he has not abused him by mentioning his caste name in a public view. Moreover, he was not aware about the community of petitioner. Only with an ulterior motive this complaint was lodged. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. ... If such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out." ... As the family members not in....
Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner has not committed the offence and he has not abused respondent No.2 in the name of his caste and he was falsely implicated by making allegations in the complaint with an intention to harass him and also to dissolve civil disputes pending between them ... The offence is alleged to have taken place within the four walls of the building. ... If such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the #HL_STA....
Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner has not committed the offence and he has not abused respondent No.2 in the name of his caste and he was falsely implicated by making allegations in the complaint with an intention to harass him and also to dissolve civil disputes pending between them ... The offence is alleged to have taken place within the four walls of the building. ... If such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the #HL_STA....
It has to be in public view. 24. We have scanned the entire record of the case with the assistance of learned Advocates with a view to examine as to whether the alleged incident had occurred in a public view. We may state that respondent No.2 has not mentioned that people from public at large were present at the spot of the incident either in her First Information Report or in the supplementary statement. The final report filed under Sections 173 of the Cr.P. Likewise Section 3(1)(s) is attracted when a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is abused by the name of caste i....
24. We have scanned the entire record of the case with the assistance of learned Advocates with a view to examine as to whether the alleged incident had occurred in a public view. We may state that respondent No.2 has not mentioned that people from public at large were present at the spot of the incident either in her First Information Report or in the supplementary statement. The final report filed under Sections 173 of the Cr.P. 2 find place in the First Information Report although, they are lacking in particulars. The question that falls for consideration is whether these alleged acts on ....
No doubt petitioner took the name of the informant’s caste while abusing the latter. If the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma (supra) is read, appreciated and understood in its proper perspective and applied to the case at hand, there appears no such intention on the part of the petitioner for being in dominant position as a man of forward class to insult and intimidate the informant being a member of SC and ST. If the victim is humiliated within public view for being SC or ST and with that intention, any overt act or mischief is committed, an offence under Section 3(1)(x) o....
Mere imputation of name of the caste while addressing the complainant cannot make out an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act because simply addressing a person by his caste without intention to insult or intimidate does not constitute an offence under the said Section. The learned counsel for the Respondents - original accused further referred to the Judgment in the matter of Dnyaneshwar Maroti Bembde and others v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2015 ALL MR (CRI) 3417, in which this Court, in Para 23, observed as under:- Thus, insult or abuse on the groun....
Moreover, unless it is alleged that the informant/complainant was insulted or intimidated in any place within public view, the offence would not be attracted. Further, such an act must be with a intention to humiliate a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe in any place within public view. Therefore, unless there is intentional insult or intimidation, mere utterance of words in the caste name does not constitute the offence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
