Offence under SC/ST Act made out only when committed against members of community "as a group": Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently held that Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [SC/ST Act] can be invoked only when an accused person has tried to promote ill-feelings against 'members' of the SC/ST community as a group. [Dr R Radhakrishnan v. The Assistant Commissioner of Police].While doing so, the Court dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by a Dalit professor of Madras University alleging that a woman professor, who was also the head of department at the University, had been discriminating against him on the grounds of caste.The petitioner, Dr R Radhakrishnan, had urged the High Court to set aside a special court order that had refused to direct the police to book the woman professor under Section 3(1)(u) of the SC/ST Act.However, Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy held,"A careful reading of the Act shows that the legislature has carefully used the words that when 'a member' of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is humiliated then Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) come into play.As far as Section 3(1)(u) is concerned, it is clear that when against the members of SC/ST, as a group, if a person is trying to promote ill feelings or enmity, then only the said offence can be made out," the High Court said..The High Court also took note of the State's submission that the petitioner had filed the plea as a counterblast against the accused, merely because she had filed a complaint with the higher authorities of the University against the petitioner for "misbehaving with some girl students." The Court further said that the woman had only submitted the complaint, and the same could not be considered as an act of physical harm or mental agony committed against the petitioner. Such conduct of the accused alone will not attract provisions of the SC/ST Act, it was held."The allegations mentioned in the complaint do not prima facie constitute criminal offences under Section 3 (1) (u) or 3 (1) (zb) of the Act and accordingly, I am unable to persuade myself to refer the complaint for investigation by the respondent police. Therefore, even though I agree in part with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the procedure adopted by Trial Court is incorrect, still this revision will not succeed and I find nothing in this complaint to refer the same to investigation to the respondent police. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed," the order stated..Advocate SA Sathia Chandran appeared for the petitioner while Advocate S Vinothkumar represented the State..[Read order]