In a contentious judgment, the Jodhpur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court discharged four individuals accused under the Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, for allegedly using derogatory terms with casteist undertones during a confrontation with public officials. Justice Birendra Kumar, in a judgment delivered on November 12, 2024, stated that the words used—”Bhangi,” “Neech,” “Bhikhari,” and “Mangani“—were not caste-specific, and there was no evidence the accused knew the caste of the complainants. While the court allowed criminal prosecution for obstructing public servants under Sections 353 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code to proceed, its interpretation of the SC/ST Act raises critical questions about justice for caste-based discrimination.
This judgment demonstrates a narrowing of the SC/ST Act’s scope, potentially setting a dangerous precedent that could weaken its protective intent.
The incident and the court’s findings
According to the prosecution, on January 21, 2011, the second respondent, accompanied by other officials, visited a site to identify encroachments allegedly made by petitioner No. 1, Achal Singh, on public land. During the site measurement, the petitioners reportedly objected to the process and allegedly hurled abusive terms such as “Bhangi,” “Neech,” “Bhikhari,” and “Mangani” at the informant and others. They were also accused of committing physical assault.
“In the case on hand as referred above, 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…persons 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“. (Para 12)
Following an investigation, the police determined that the allegations were unfounded and submitted a negative report. However, upon the filing of a Protest Petition, the court took cognisance of the matter, and charges were subsequently framed against the petitioners.
The court, however, found the evidence insufficient to sustain these charges. Justice Kumar noted, “The words used were not caste name[s], nor is there [an] allegation that the petitioners were known to the caste of the public servants.” The court emphasised that the police investigation had already dismissed the allegations as untrue, with no independent witnesses to corroborate the complainant’s account. Furthermore, the court observed that the altercation arose from the accused’s dissatisfaction with the officials’ actions and not from caste-based animosity.
“Learned counsel contends that there is no iota of evidence that the petitioners had knowledge about the caste of the informant and others. There is no material that the incident took place in the public view. Only the prosecution party are witnesses of the incident. Learned counsel next contends that it is a case of flagrant abuse of the provisions of law because the incident did not take place for the reason that petitioners were intending to humiliate the informant and others for their being members of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes rather the incident took place for unfair measurements to decide any encroachment allegedly made by the petitioners.” (Para 8)
The decision also drew upon the Supreme Court’s precedent in Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., where similar charges were dismissed due to the absence of public witnesses and the lack of direct caste references. The court ruled that the essential ingredients of intent to humiliate and public view, as required by the SC/ST Act, were not met in this case.
The role of intent and context in caste-based abuse
Central to the court’s judgment was its reliance on the absence of intent to humiliate the complainant based on caste. The accused contended that their frustration with alleged procedural irregularities in land measurement led to the altercation, and the court accepted this explanation. However, this approach fails to account for the socio-cultural significance of the language used.
Terms like “Bhangi” and “Neech,” though not explicit caste names, are loaded with casteist connotations and have historically been used to demean and marginalise Dalits. Their use in any context perpetuates caste hierarchies and reinforces systemic discrimination, regardless of the alleged intent. By focusing narrowly on the intent of the accused, the court overlooked the broader impact of such language on the complainant’s dignity and the collective trauma of marginalised communities.
This reasoning risks creating a dangerous precedent, where the use of casteist slurs may be excused as long as intent cannot be conclusively proven. Such an interpretation undermines the SC/ST Act’s purpose of addressing the structural and often covert nature of caste oppression.
Narrow interpretation of “Public View”
Another critical aspect of the judgment was its reliance on the absence of independent witnesses to dismiss the charges. The court interpreted the SC/ST Act’s requirement of “public view” to mean that the incident must have been witnessed by uninvolved third parties. Justice Kumar noted, “Only the informant and its officials are witnesses of the incident; no independent witness has turned up to support [the claims].”
This interpretation reflects a restrictive and problematic view of public view. Many acts of caste-based abuse occur in semi-public spaces, where independent witnesses may be unwilling to come forward due to fear of retaliation or societal pressures. In such contexts, requiring independent corroboration places an unfair evidentiary burden on the victim, discouraging them from seeking justice.
The problematic role of police investigations
The court’s heavy reliance on the findings of the police investigation raises further concerns. The police had earlier dismissed the allegations as baseless, but their report was challenged by the complainant, leading to charges being framed. Justice Kumar’s acceptance of the police report as conclusive evidence overlooks systemic issues within law enforcement, where caste-based atrocities are often underreported or trivialised.
The SC/ST Act was enacted precisely because of the entrenched biases within the criminal justice system, which often fail to address the grievances of marginalised communities. By leaning heavily on the police investigation without critically examining its methodology or potential biases, the court risked undermining the Act’s protective framework.
Implications for the SC/ST Act
The dismissal of charges under the SC/ST Act in this case reflects a broader trend of judicial interpretations narrowing the scope of the law. While the Act was designed to protect vulnerable communities from systemic discrimination, judgments like this one demonstrate how procedural hurdles and technicalities can erode its efficacy.
By focusing on the absence of intent and public witnesses, the court’s decision risks emboldening those who perpetuate casteist behaviour. It also sends a discouraging message to victims, who may perceive the legal system as being indifferent to their lived experiences of discrimination.
At a time when caste-based atrocities are on the rise, as evidenced by increasing reports from across India, the SC/ST Act’s robust enforcement is critical. Diluting its provisions through narrow interpretations not only weakens its deterrent effect but also undermines the broader fight for social justice and equality.
The judgment underscores the urgent need for a more contextual and empathetic approach to cases involving caste-based discrimination. While procedural safeguards are necessary to ensure fairness, they should not come at the cost of justice for victims of systemic oppression. Courts must recognise that casteist abuse often occurs in subtle and insidious ways that do not always align neatly with rigid legal definitions.
A broader interpretation of terms like “public view” and a more nuanced understanding of the socio-cultural impact of casteist language would better serve the SC/ST Act’s intent. Such an approach would not only uphold the law’s protective spirit but also affirm the judiciary’s commitment to safeguarding the dignity and rights of marginalised communities.
In conclusion, while the Rajasthan High Court’s judgment raises troubling questions about its implications for caste justice. Moving forward, it is imperative that courts adopt a more comprehensive framework that balances procedural integrity with the broader goals of equality and social justice. Only then can the SC/ST Act remain a meaningful tool in the fight against caste-based atrocities.
The complete judgment can be read here:
Related:
BJP Jharkhand manifesto splashes 23 pictures of Modi, neglects party’s Adivasi faces