Words like “Bhangi,” “Neech,” “Bhikhari” and “Mangani” which denote beggars or lowly people, are not caste designations and do not give rise to charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act).
The order was pronounced by the Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court on 12th November. Judge Birendra Kumar made this statement whilst dismissing charges under the SC/ST Act against four men (petitioners/appellants) who reportedly used derogatory language against some government employees who had arrived to verify and remove certain encroachments.
The court conveyed, “The words used were not caste name nor there is allegation that the petitioners were known to the caste of the public servants, who had gone to remove the encroachments. Moreover, it is crystal clear on bare perusal of allegation that the petitioners were not intending to humiliate the (public servants) for the reason that they were members of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes rather act of the petitioners was in protest against the action of measurements being wrongly done by the public servants.”
The case dealt with an incident that happened in January 2011 when some officials went to Jaisalmer to check up on an alleged intrusion on public property. The petitioners were accused of verbally abusing the officers and obstructing them during the inspection. Sections 353 (assault or criminal force to prevent public servant from fulfillment of his duty), 332 (injury to deter public servant), and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and section 3(1)(X) of the SC/ST Act were therefore used to file a criminal complaint against the petitioners. A protest petition resulted in a trial court filing criminal charges against the petitioners, despite the police originally finding the claims baseless and submitting a negative report. Afterward, the petitioners who faced allegations approached the high court to have the case against them dismissed.
The petitioners’ attorney contended that there was insufficient evidence to support a case under the act’s section 3(1)(X), which addresses deliberate insults or intimidation intended to degrade a SC/ST member in public. They further stated that no independent witnesses were present to establish that the incident took place in public view and that they were ignorant of the informant’s caste. These reasons, such as the lack of an independent witness to back up the assertion that the claimed assault occurred in open view, were considered to have merit by the court.
The order pointed out, “In the case on hand, only the informant and its officials are witnesses of the incident, no independent witness has turned up to support that he was the witness of the incident.” As a result, the court dismissed the petitioners from the SC/ST Act proceedings and partially granted the plea. However, it observed that there were adequate grounds to move forward with the trial on the remaining counts under sections 353 and 332 of the IPC. “While there is prima facie allegation that the petitioners obstructed in the official discharge of public duty by the respondent and therefore for that act of the petitioners, criminal prosecution would go on,” the court mentioned.
