Supreme Court: Casteist Slur in Closed Room Not a Public Offence Under SC/ST Act

The Supreme Court has ruled that an allegation of a casteist slur made inside a closed room cannot be treated as an offence committed in public view under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The observation came while the Court cancelled proceedings against a school manager who had been charged under the Act.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta noted that the prosecution had failed to establish, even prima facie, that the alleged slur was uttered in a place where members of the public could see or hear it. The Court was hearing an appeal against an Allahabad High Court order that had dismissed the manager's plea to quash the proceedings.

The case arose from an incident at a school where the complainant's two sons studied. The complainant had approached the school manager following a dispute between students. It was alleged that the manager and some staff members assaulted the complainant and hurled casteist slurs at him. A police case was filed under the SC/ST Act, followed by a chargesheet.

The school manager's wife filed a cross FIR, accusing the complainant of verbally abusing and assaulting her in the school office. She claimed the manager intervened and was also assaulted. A local court admitted the chargesheet in this FIR as well.

The manager then challenged the summons order before the Allahabad High Court, which declined to grant relief, holding that a prima facie case existed and that the case could not be quashed merely on the ground of vendetta.

In the Supreme Court, the manager's counsel argued that the alleged incident took place inside a closed room and that witness statements did not show any member of the public was present or that anyone outside heard the alleged remarks.

Examining the requirements of Sections 3(1)(R) and 3(1)(S) of the SC/ST Act, the Supreme Court said the core question was whether the alleged slur was uttered within public view. The Court reiterated earlier principles: a place where members of the public are present and can see or hear the words can be considered 'in public view'. Conversely, an incident occurring within four walls, with no members of the public present, cannot automatically be deemed to have occurred in public view.

The Court also noted that while school teachers confirmed the dispute and altercation, none said they were present when the alleged casteist abuses were hurled or that they had heard such remarks. Therefore, no basis for casteist slurs was found in the witness statements.

However, the Supreme Court clarified that proceedings on other offences filed under the Indian Penal Code will continue. The ruling underscores the legal distinction between private and public settings in matters of caste-based discrimination, a principle that has been upheld in several earlier judgments.

This decision has significant implications for how allegations under the SC/ST Act are assessed, ensuring that the law is not misused while also upholding its intent to prevent atrocities.