Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court on August 20, 2026, quashed proceedings under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 1989 (SC/ST Act). Once again the definition of “place within public view” under the SC/ST Act came into spotlight through this judgment. The Supreme Court has previously delineated the scope of the term “place within public view” from various judgments. But is this explanation or interpretation really achieve the ultimate aim of legislatures behind enacting the statutes?

Why Section 3 of the Act Came Into Spotlight?

Section 3 of the Act came into news again and has once again become a subject of intense debate among legal practitioners. As the Supreme Court recently gave judgment, in the case of Ramkrishna Chauhan v. State Of U.P. & ANR, in which court particularly dealt with the meaning of the term “place within public view”, under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act.

In this case the Supreme Court considered whether the alleged caste-based abuses were uttered at a place “within public view.” The Court held that merely because the incident occurred on school premises, the requirement of public view was not automatically satisfied. Since the FIR and site plan showed that the alleged incident occurred inside an enclosed room, with no indication that members of the public could witness or hear the utterances, the essential requirement of “public view” under the SC/ST Act was not established. Consequently, the Court quashed the proceedings.

Precedent Set In The Case-

The court in this particular case while relying on previous judgments observed that, when occurrence occurred inside the closed room and in the absence of human presence, it lacked requirement of SC/ST Act. Further court clarified that to frame charges under the said act the offence must fulfil two requirements, firstly it must committed at place which is within view of public and secondly, it must in the presence or hearing of members of the public.

It is also important to acknowledge that the Supreme Court did not rest its conclusion solely on the question of public view. The Court also found that the material on record did not contain a specific allegation attributing caste-based words to the appellant and that the witnesses had not stated that they heard such utterances.

Intent of Legislature Behind The Act-

The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 enacted on 11 September 1989 by the Parliament Of India. The Act was enacted against the backdrop of continuing caste-based discrimination, humiliation, violence and social oppression faced by members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Parliament recognised that the ordinary criminal law was inadequate to address the particular nature of atrocities committed against these communities. The Act was therefore intended not merely to punish individual acts of violence, but also to protect the dignity, self-respect and social status of persons belonging to historically marginalised communities and to provide them with an effective legal mechanism for protection, prosecution, relief and rehabilitation. The statement of object and reasons appended to the Bill while moving the same in the Parliament, reads

“despite various measures to improve the socioeconomic conditions of SCs and STs, they remain vulnerable. They are denied a number of civil rights, they are to various offences, indignities, humiliations and harassment. They have, several brutal incidents, been deprived of their life and property. Serious atrocities are committed against them for various historical, social, and economic reasons.”

The main intent of legislature behind enacting the statutes was clear that to punish offenders who commit violence and cast discrimination against the members of SC/ST communities. Parliament of India timely amended the Act as per the changing time and to tackle new situations.

Section 3(1)(r) and 3 (1)(s) Of The SC/ST Act-

“3. Punishment for offences atrocities –

  1. Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe-

(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;

(s)abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by case name in any place within public view;

Shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.”

The Jurisprudence: Landmark Precedents–

What is to be considered as “within public view” has been explained by the Supreme Court and High Courts through various judgments.

In Swaran Singh v. State (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the place of the crime must be seen by the public. It also clarified by the court that if the crime is committed inside the building and if in the presence of any member of public, such a place can be considered as a “place in public view”. In this case court also observed that the witness must be other than friends and relatives of accused.

So, court in this case made it clear that private place also can be a place in public view if any member of public present there. This means that cast abuses in enclosed places such as house and private offices, would not constitute an offence under the Act if that not witnessed by any member of public.

The same observation made by the Supreme Court in the case of Karuppudayar v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi, Trichy and Others (2024) The court affirmed that,

“11. 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.”

Also, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Rajinder Kaur v. State Of Punjab (2023) clarified that an offence under the SC/ST Act would not be constituted if a caste based remark is made within four walls (in Banquet Hall), and it cannot be included within the ambit of public view.

The Evidentiary Dilemma and Practical Hurdles-

From this recent Ramkrishna Chauhan versus State Of U.P. & ANR judgment and previous observations of the Supreme Court and various High Courts it is clear that to attract provisions SC/ST Act, the following two conditions must be fulfilled-

  1. The offence must be at place which is within public view
  2. And must be witnessed by members of public other than friends and relatives.

It is clearly seen that, this two requirements are very difficult to fulfil.

As it is a well-settled principle that perpetrators rarely commit offences in plain view, but it doesn't mean that it is not an offence just because it is not committed in the presence of any member of society.

A practical difficulty arises where caste-based humiliation deliberately takes place in private settings, precisely because the absence of independent witnesses may make the statutory requirement difficult to establish.

In this situation were utterance occurred in a private place for eg. Staffroom, cabin or private office etc., and in the absence of any other member of public, its almost impossible for victim to prove his case.

The Conflict Between Strict Interpretation and Legislative Intent-

As mentioned earlier the SC/ST Act came into existence against the backdrop of continuing caste-based discrimination, humiliation, violence and social oppression faced by members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

The Act intended not merely to punish individual acts of violence, but also to protect the dignity, self-respect and social status of persons belonging to historically marginalised communities and to provide them with an effective legal mechanism for protection, prosecution, relief and rehabilitation.

To achieve this main object of the Act, the exemption of Four Walls(private place) becoming obstacle for not only prosecution but also for our legal system.

The spatial constraints of a private room do not inherently negate the criminality of the Act.

Supremacy of Constitution by Reformation In a Statute –

If the exemption of private place becoming barrier in achieving object of the Act; it also ignoring constitutional provisions that ensures abolition of caste-based discrimination and untouchability, then it can be only be solved by reformation in a statutes.

The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, must be understood in the broader constitutional commitment to equality and social justice. Articles 14, 15(2), 17 and 21 of the Constitution seek to eliminate caste-based discrimination, untouchability, and practices that undermine the dignity and equal status of individuals. The enactment of the SC/ST Act reflects the legislative recognition that formal equality alone is insufficient where historically marginalised communities continue to face caste-based violence, humiliation and social exclusion. The Act therefore serves as a statutory mechanism to give meaningful effect to the constitutional promise of equality, dignity and protection against caste-based oppression.

The Supreme Court declared that when occurrence occurred inside closed doors it cannot attract SC/ST Act. But new legal question raised that whether present interpretation adequately serves the constitutional and legislative purpose of the SC/ST Act, when caste-based humiliation occurs in private spaces.

Views are personal.

Tags: