A person could only be tried under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act if their comments are heard in a “place within a public view” according to the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The court pronounced the ruling while overturning the criminal charges brought against a school owner.
“The verbal abuse by utterance of caste name of a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe would not be an offence under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) if such incident takes place within a house where no outsider is present,” Judge Shamim Ahmed declared presiding on an educationist’s plea to challenge criminal proceedings against him for allegedly hurling casteist abuse at a student’s father.
According to the court, a person is entitled to trial for the offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act if the words were spoken in an open environment and within the presence of other individuals. The statements were made by the court while dismissing a case brought against a school owner. A parent claimed that the owner had deliberately failed his son and other students in 12th-grade examinations.
The complainant alleged that he was promised Rs 5 lakh by the owner and his associates to withdraw the case. He argued that the accused hurled insults at him by referencing his caste. Nonetheless, the bench found that he had not disclosed any information regarding the nature of the insults and that the accused had not mistreated him in public.
Given other rulings rendered by the Supreme Court in cases such as this one, the court noted, “An offence under the Act, 1989 would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of society is subjected to indignities, humiliations, and harassment in any place within the public view.”
Moreover, it concluded that impartial witnesses were not even at the residence at the time of the purported occurrence and had not corroborated the allegations. “It is further observed that as per his case, respondent No. 3 (complainant) clearly stated in the FIR and in his statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC that whatever incident took place that took place inside his house, thus, it is not a place within a public view as no outsider was sitting in the room nor anyone has seen the alleged incident”, the court said.
The school owner had no involvement in the process, the court noted, and the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) alone was in charge of student examination results.
