Caste Abuse Inside Private Office Without 'Public View' Not Offence Under SC/ST Act: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that casteist remarks allegedly made inside the office chambers, in the absence of any member of the public or an independent witness, would not attract the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. [2026 LiveLaw (Del) 680]
Justice Madhu Jain observed that the requirement that the alleged insult or intimidation must occur “in any place within public view” is a foundational ingredient of the offence and cannot be dispensed with.
“A plain reading of the complaint dated 29.02.2008 shows that the complaint itself alleges that the caste-based remarks were made inside the respective offices of the petitioners. Significantly, there is no averment that any member of the public or any independent person was present at the time of the alleged incidents,” the Court said.
The Court accordingly set aside an order of the trial court directing framing of charges against officials of Trans World Radio India under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, while remanding the matter for fresh consideration on whether charges under the IPC were made out.
The petition had been filed by four office-bearers of Trans World Radio India, including its Administrative and Human Resources Director, Chief Executive Officer, Supervisor and Technical Director.
The complainants, who were employed as safai karamcharis with the organisation, had alleged that they were subjected to caste-based abuses, pressured to convert to Christianity and threatened with termination from service.
According to the complaint filed before the magistrate in February 2008, the accused had used casteist slurs against the complainants on multiple occasions inside their offices and had forced them to eat near toilets.
The trial court had, in 2012, held that a prima facie case was made out and directed framing of charges under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act.
Before the High Court, senior advocate Rebecca John, appearing for the Petitioners, argued that the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, did not satisfy the statutory requirement that the alleged insult must have occurred “within public view”. It was contended that the remarks were alleged to have been made during private conversations inside office cabins and that no independent person was present.
Petitioners also contended that the allegations of caste-based abuse surfaced for the first time in the complaint filed before the magistrate and were absent from earlier complaints made to the police, which had primarily focused on allegations of religious conversion and discrimination.
Examining the scope of Section 3(1)(x), the High Court referred to the Supreme Court's judgments in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which emphasised that the element of “public view” is an essential ingredient of the offence.
Holding that the complaint did not prima facie establish that the alleged casteist remarks were made “in any place within public view”, Justice Jain ruled that the charge framed under the SC/ST Act could not be sustained.
Appearance: Ms. Rebecca M. John, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Pravir Singh, Adv.; Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP
Case Title: Christine Swaroop Raj & Ors. v. State & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 680
Case no.: CRL.M.C. 2555/2012