Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Charges: Insult Must Be in Public View (2025 INSC 132)

Date of the Judgment: January 31, 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 132

Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., Augustine George Masih, J.

Can a person be charged under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC-ST Act) for using casteist slurs inside a government office? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question, clarifying the interpretation of “public view” under the Act. The Court held that for an offense to be made out under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act, the insult or abuse must occur in a place accessible to the public, not just within the confines of a private office. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih.

Case Background

On September 2, 2021, the appellant, Karuppudayar, visited the Revenue Divisional Office in Lalgudi, Tiruchirappalli, to inquire about a petition concerning his father’s name being included in the land records (patta). During this visit, a dispute arose between Karuppudayar and Mr. Ravi Kumar, the Revenue Inspector (Respondent No. 3). Karuppudayar allegedly abused Mr. Ravi Kumar using his caste name within the Revenue Divisional Office. Following this incident, Mr. Ravi Kumar filed a complaint with the Lalgudi Police Station (Respondent No. 2). A case was registered against Karuppudayar under Sections 294(b) and 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act.

The police filed a charge sheet after investigation, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court. Subsequently, a case (Spl. S.C. No. 7 of 2022) was initiated against the Appellant before the I -Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Tiruchirappalli. Karuppudayar then filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) before the High Court of Madras to quash the proceedings. The High Court dismissed his petition, stating that no prejudice would be caused to the Appellant if he is subjected to trial. Aggrieved, Karuppudayar appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant, Karuppudayar, initially filed petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the High Court of Madras, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him. The High Court dismissed these petitions, stating that no prejudice would be caused to the Appellant if he is subjected to trial. The High Court did not consider the argument that the alleged offense did not occur in a public view. Aggrieved by this decision, Karuppudayar appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. These sections state:

• Section 3(1)(r) of the SC-ST Act: “intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.”
• Section 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act: “abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view.”

The key phrase in both sections is “in any place within public view.” The Supreme Court has previously clarified that this phrase does not mean the same as “public place.” A place can be private but still within public view if it is accessible to the public. The Court has also held that if the offense occurs inside a building, but members of the public (not just relatives or friends) are present, it would still be considered in public view. However, if the incident occurs within the confines of a private space, not accessible to the public, the offense is not made out.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Smt. Vanshaja Shukla):

• The High Court erred in rejecting the appellant’s petition.
• Even if the allegations in the FIR are taken at face value, the ingredients of offenses under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act are not met.
• The incident did not occur in “any place within public view,” as required by the SC-ST Act.
• The High Court should have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the proceedings.

Respondent’s Arguments (Shri Sabarish Subramanian):

• A detailed investigation was conducted, and a charge sheet was filed.
• The High Court, after reviewing the charge sheet, found no grounds to quash the proceedings.
• No interference is warranted in the present case.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues, but the core issue was whether the alleged offense under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act occurred “in any place within public view.”

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court followed Swaran Singh and others v. State through Standing Counsel and another [(2008) 8 SCC 435]* to distinguish between “public place” and “place within public view.”
• The Court relied on Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and another [(2020) 10 SCC 710]* which reiterated the legal position laid down in Swaran Singh (supra).
• The Court applied the principles laid down in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335]* to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings.
• The Court interpreted Section 3(1)(r) and Section 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act* to mean that the offense must occur in a place accessible to the public.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the interpretation of the phrase “in any place within public view” as used in Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act. The Court emphasized that for an offense to be constituted under these provisions, the insult or abuse must occur in a location accessible to the public, where it can be witnessed or heard by members of the public. The Court noted that the incident occurred within the four walls of the complainant’s office, where no members of the public were present at the time of the incident. The Court also emphasized that the High Court had not considered this aspect of the matter while dismissing the appellant’s petition.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered and rejected the argument that the mere presence of colleagues of the complainant after the incident would make it a public view. The Court also rejected the argument that the High Court was correct in its decision as the High Court had not considered the argument that the alleged offense did not occur in a public view. The Supreme Court relied on the principles laid down in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335]* to quash the proceedings.

The Court quoted from the FIR: “That on 2nd September 2021, while the complainant was engaged in his office doing his duty, the accused came to the office in the morning in order to enquire about the petition given by him already to the Revenue Divisional Officer regarding entering the name of his father in the ‘patta’. On such enquiry being made, the complainant informed the accused that the said petition has been sent to the Taluk office, Lalgudi and that appropriate action would be taken after receipt of the reply from the Taluk Office, Lalgudi. It is alleged that at that stage, the accused asked the complainant as to what caste he belongs to and stated that the complainant belongs to ‘Parayan’ caste. Thereafter, the accused stated that, “if you people are appointed in Government service you all will do like this only…”. Thereafter, he scolded the complainant calling his caste name and insulted him using vulgar words. The further allegation is that thereafter the colleagues of the complainant came there, pacified the accused and took him away.”

The Court also observed: “It is thus clear that even as per the FIR, the incident has taken place within the four corners of the chambers of the complainant. The other colleagues of the complainant arrived at the scene after the occurrence of the incident.”

The Court concluded: “We are, therefore, of the considered view that since the incident has not taken place at a place which can be termed to be a place within public view, the offence would not come under the provisions of either Section 3(1)(r) or Section 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• For an offense under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act to be made out, the insult or abuse must occur in a place accessible to the public.
• The phrase “in any place within public view” does not mean the same as “public place.”
• An office, not accessible to the public, is not considered a place within public view.
• High Courts should exercise their inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash proceedings if the allegations in the FIR do not constitute an offense.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed the judgment of the High Court of Madras and set aside the charge sheet in Special S.C. No. 7 of 2022 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Tiruchirappalli, along with all proceedings pursuant thereto.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that for an offense under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act to be made out, the insult or abuse must occur in a place accessible to the public. This case clarifies the interpretation of “place within public view” and reinforces the principles laid down in previous judgments like Swaran Singh and Hitesh Verma. The judgment also reiterates the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal regarding the quashing of criminal proceedings.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Karuppudayar vs. State clarifies that for an offense under the SC-ST Act to be valid, the act of insult or abuse must occur in a place accessible to the public. The Court quashed the proceedings against the appellant, emphasizing that the incident occurred within the confines of a private office, not in a place within public view. This ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to the specific requirements of the law and prevents the misuse of the SC-ST Act in cases where the alleged offense does not meet the necessary criteria.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Categories:

• Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
• Section 3(1)(r), Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
• Section 3(1)(s), Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
• Public View
• Quashing of Criminal Proceedings
• Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

FAQ

Q: What is the main issue in the Karuppudayar vs. State case?

A: The main issue is whether an offense under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out when the alleged insult or abuse occurs within the confines of an office and not in public view.

Q: What does “in any place within public view” mean under the SC-ST Act?

A: It means a place that is accessible to the public, where the act of insult or abuse can be witnessed or heard by members of the public. It does not mean the same as “public place.”

Q: If someone uses casteist slurs inside an office, can they be charged under the SC-ST Act?

A: No, if the office is not accessible to the public, the offense is not made out under the SC-ST Act. The act must occur in a place within public view.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?

A: The Supreme Court quashed the proceedings against the appellant, holding that the incident did not occur in a place within public view as required by the SC-ST Act.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment?

A: This judgment clarifies the interpretation of “place within public view” under the SC-ST Act and prevents the misuse of the Act in cases where the alleged offense does not meet the necessary criteria.