Casteist Insults Under SC/ST Act Must Be Made in Public View to Be Punishable: Supreme Court
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court clarified that for an individual to be punished for casteist insults under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act), the derogatory comments must be made within public view. This interpretation emphasizes the necessity for allegations to meet specific criteria to warrant legal action.
In the case at hand, the appellant alleged a violation under the SC/ST Act and sought a direction for FIR registration under Section 156 of the CrPC. The trial court ordered a preliminary inquiry and subsequently dismissed the application. The High Court later reversed this decision, prompting the appellants to approach the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti, examined the requirements under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act. This section outlines the punishments for offences of atrocities, specifically noting that insults or intimidations must occur “within public view” to qualify as offences. The Court found the appellant’s allegations ambiguous, lacking specific details about the place and public context of the insults.
The Court highlighted that vague allegations without clear references to public view do not meet the legal requirements for registering an FIR or initiating an investigation. The decision underscored that “public view” necessitates the presence of individuals other than the complainant.
In this particular case, the allegations included derogatory terms but failed to specify the context or public presence during the incidents. Additionally, some accusations were unclear about the exact dates, further weakening the claims.
The Supreme Court supported the trial court’s decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry and deemed the High Court’s order for FIR registration unsustainable. The Court reiterated that magistrates, under Section 156(3), must exercise discretion judiciously, considering the circumstances and nature of the allegations.
The case involved trainee athletes at the Olympic Riding and Equestrian Academy in New Delhi, with multiple counter-allegations complicating the matter. The Court concluded by questioning the suitability of individuals unable to maintain composure in guiding horses in equestrian training, leaving the matter to the parties’ passion and dedication.
Case Title: Priti Agarwalla and Others v. The State of GNCT of Delhi and Others
