Caste Abuse Against Woman Does Not Attract SC/ST Act Merely Because Husband Belongs To SC Community: J&K&L High Court
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that caste-based abuse directed at a woman who does not herself belong to a Scheduled Caste community does not attract the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, merely because her husband belongs to a Scheduled Caste community.
Justice Sanjay Dhar further observed that, prima facie, the Act's provisions relating to caste-based insult and humiliation were not attracted where the woman's Scheduled Caste husband, against whom the alleged caste-based abuses were also directed, was not present at the spot. The Court clarified that the investigating agency would have to examine whether the ingredients of the offence were made out.
The Court made these observations while granting bail to Devinder Singh and others in a case registered at Police Station Bishnah under Sections 79, 351(2), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 3 of the SC/ST Act. The accused had also sought quashing of the FIR.
Background:
The complainant alleged that the accused entered an open plot of land at Bishnah and abused her and her husband using caste-based expressions, including “Chamar” and “Chamarin”. One of the accused allegedly shouted, “Latt mar kar nikalo chamarin ko”, while the complainant claimed that the accused also used obscene language and threatened her.
The complainant's husband belonged to a Scheduled Caste community and was stated to have suffered 75% permanent disability. However, he was not present at the spot when the alleged incident occurred.
The accused contended that the FIR arose out of a longstanding civil dispute concerning land and the operation of a petrol pump. They argued that the complainant did not belong to a Scheduled Caste community and that the alleged caste-based abuses against her husband could not attract the relevant provisions of the SC/ST Act in his absence.
Opposing the petitions, the complainant maintained that the alleged abuses had been directed at her in public view and that the accused should be prosecuted notwithstanding the pending civil disputes.
Court's Observations:
The Court examined whether the allegations in the FIR prima facie attracted Section 3(1)(r) and Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, which deal with intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in a place within public view, and abuse by caste name in such circumstances.
Justice Dhar observed that the complainant, though married to a member of a Scheduled Caste community, did not herself belong to that community. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Sunita Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 2 SCC 493, the Court reiterated that caste is determined by birth and does not change through marriage.
The Court held,
“Therefore, even if it is assumed that the petitioners used filthy caste-based language against respondent No. 2/complainant, who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste community, offence under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act would not be constituted by such acts of the accused.”
The Court then considered the allegation that caste-based abuses had also been directed against the complainant's husband, who belonged to a Scheduled Caste community but was not present at the spot.
Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Asmathunnisa v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2011) 11 SCC 259, Justice Dhar noted that, for the relevant provision, the person allegedly insulted must be present for the incident to fall within its ambit. The Court observed,
“the public must view the person being insulted, for which he must be present, and no offence on the allegations under the said section gets attracted if the person is not present.”
Applying this principle to the allegations, the Court held that, prima facie, the ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act did not appear to be attracted. It nevertheless made clear that the investigating agency would have to investigate the matter and determine whether the offence was actually made out.
The Court also took note of the ongoing civil dispute between the parties over the land and petrol pump transaction. While the accused claimed that the agreed consideration had been paid, the complainant disputed the transaction and alleged that the full amount remained unpaid. Civil proceedings concerning the dispute were pending before the competent court.
Noting these circumstances, the Court observed,
“the possibility that the civil dispute may have prompted the complainant to file the impugned FIR against them cannot be ruled out.”
On the question of bail, the Court also considered the nature of the offences alleged under the BNS and concluded that the case warranted the accused's release on bail.
The Court accordingly granted bail subject to conditions, including furnishing bail bonds of ₹50,000 each with one surety, cooperating with the investigation, refraining from tampering with prosecution witnesses and not leaving the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir without the investigating officer's prior permission.
The Court permitted the investigation to continue but directed that the charge sheet could not be filed before the competent court without its permission. It also directed the complainant to file an affidavit clarifying whether she had instituted a civil suit pending before the Sub Judge (City Judge), Jammu, and signed the pleadings and vakalatnama in that case.
The Court disposed of the bail application while directing that the petition seeking quashing of the FIR be listed on November 16, 2026.
Case Title: Devinder Singh and Others v. Union Territory of J&K
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)
Appearances:
Rahul Pant, Senior Advocate, with Aniruddh Sharma for the petitioners.
Shazia Asaf, Advocate, vice P.D. Singh, Deputy Advocate General, and Abhishek Singh Parihar, Advocate, for the respondents.