Casteist slurs inside private home and outside public gaze not offence under SC/ST Act: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday held that caste-based abuses made inside a private residence and outside public view would not attract offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [Gunjan @ Girija Kumari vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.].

A Bench of Justices NV Anjaria and PK Mishra said the requirement that the alleged insult or abuse take place in a location “within public view” is an essential ingredient for offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.

“It could thus be seen that, to be a place ‘within public view’, the place should be open where the members of the public can witness or hear the utterance made by the accused to the victim...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 place at a place within public view,” the Court held.

Referring to earlier precedents, the Court reiterated that even a private place may qualify as being within public view if members of the public are able to witness the incident.

However, where the alleged abuse takes place entirely within the four walls of a house and outside public gaze, the offence under the SC/ST Act would not be made out.

The Court was hearing a plea seeking quashing of a first information report (FIR) and criminal proceedings initiated against four members of a family in Delhi over allegations of caste-based abuse and criminal intimidation arising out of a property dispute.

The complainant and the accused were family members. Two of the accused and the complainant were brothers belonging to Scheduled Castes, while the other accused were their wives.

According to the FIR registered at Kirti Nagar Police Station in January 2021, the complainant alleged that one of the women accused, who belonged to an upper caste before marriage, habitually used casteist slurs such as “chura”, “chamar”, “harijan” and “dirty drain” against him and his family.

The complaint stated that on January 28, 2021, the accused attempted to break open the lock of the complainant’s house during an ongoing property dispute relating to family properties in Hari Nagar and Ramesh Nagar.

It was alleged that during the altercation, caste-based abuses were hurled at the complainant and his wife and threats were also issued to falsely implicate him in a molestation case.

Following investigation, charges were framed against one of the accused under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act and against all accused under Section 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for criminal intimidation.

The Delhi High Court later refused to interfere with the order framing charges, observing that at the stage of framing charges, the Court was not expected to conduct a “mini trial”.

However, the Supreme Court found that the basic ingredients required to constitute offences under the SC/ST Act were absent from the FIR itself.

The bench noted that the complaint nowhere stated that the alleged incident took place “within public view” or that independent members of the public were present at the time of the incident.

“Once that is so, to suggest that the house place was not exposed to public eye or public gaze, a residential house in no way becomes ‘a place within public view’,” the Court observed.

The Court further noted that the allegations regarding earlier instances of caste abuse over a period of one year were vague and did not refer to any specific incident.

It also found that the two witnesses named in the FIR were friends of the complainant and their statements did not indicate that they had actually witnessed the alleged incident.

The Court also quashed the charge of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC, holding that the allegations in the FIR did not disclose any intention to cause “alarm”, which is an essential ingredient of the offence.

“In the present case, even after closely reading the averments in the complaint, it is difficult to come to the conclusion that the appellants-accused exerted threat with an intent to cause ‘alarm’ to respondent No.2-complainant,” the Court said.

Hence, the Court set aside the Delhi High Court judgment as well as the trial court orders framing charges and quashed the FIR and chargesheet.

The appellant was represented by advocates Avadh Bihari Kaushik, Urvashi Bhatia, Jatin Khatri, Mukesh Saroja and Rishabh Kumar.

The respondents were represented by Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave, along with advocates Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Kamal Rattan Digpaul, Harshita Choubey, Digvijay Dam and Udit Dediya.

[Read Judgment]

Gunjan @ Girija Kumari vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.