SC/ST Act Enacted To Safeguard Interest Of Community Members, Not To Be Used As Tool Against Citizens: Madras High Court

Justice M Dhandpani observed that the Act was a beneficial legislation intended to protect the interests of the members belonging to the communities and should not be used as a tool against the citizens of the country.

“...this is a classic case of abuse of the benevolent provisions of the SC/ST Act by the member of the said community, which Act was enacted with the aim of safeguarding the interests of the SC/ST community people from the clutches of the other members of the citizenry, but definitely not to be used as a tool against the very same citizenry by the members of the SC/ST community,” the court said.

The Court added that before entertaining complaints under the Act, the SC/ST Commission should ensure that no innocent common man is unnecessarily dragged to go through the rigours of the Act.

“It has now come to the notice of the Courts and has also been lamented by the Apex Court that the provisions of the SC/ST Act are more misused rather than being used for legitimate and genuine instances. Therefore, it is high time that the 2nd respondent [SC/ST Commission] before entertaining such complaints, be abreast of the law propounded by the Courts so that the innocent common man is not unnecessarily dragged to go through the rigours of the penal consequences attached with the said provision,” the court said.

The court was hearing a plea filed by Varun Kumar IPS (DIG of Police, Trichy), DSP Yasmin (ACP of CCB Vepery), and Kavitha (SSI of Police, Jambunathapura Police Station) seeking to quash a case registered against them before the SC/ST Commission.

The case in the commission was lodged by one Thamizhselvan, an advocate, alleging that the petitioners had castigated him using his caste name. Thamizhselvan had argued that he had lodged a complaint against certain police officers, in which the SHRC had issued directions for disciplinary action and had imposed cost on the officers. He argued that the petitioners foisted false criminal case against him and castigated him using his caste name.

The petitioners submitted that Thamizhselvan had a property dispute with one Kannan and had approached Kavitha (3^rd petitioner) for registering an FIR against Kannan. When she refused, Thamizhselvan approached the Yasmin (ACP), who also refused to register FIR. Following this, Thamizhselvan approached Varun Kumar (DIG), alleging that the other two officers humiliated him using his caste name. Later, the said Thamizhselvan filed a complaint with the State Human Rights Commission and the Tamil Nadu SC/ST Commission seeking action against the officers.

The petitioners submitted that the complaint was a motivated one. It was submitted that the complaint before SHRC did not contain any allegation relating to caste based abuse and the allegation was subsequently introduced in the complaint before the SC/ST Commission.

It was submitted that the complaint should not have been entertained, since the alleged remarked were made within the four walls of the petitioner's office and not in public, as contemplated under the Act.

The SC/ST Commission, which was the second respondent in the case, submitted that it was not aware about the complaint made before the SHRC as the said fact was not disclosed in the complaint. Even then, the commission submitted that it was not precluded from taking cognisance of the complaint, as the only bar was if a complaint was pending before the National Commission of SC/ST. The commission thus argued that it was within jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and sought to dismiss the writ petition.

The court noted that as per the Act, what was significant was that the alleged act should have been committed within public view. In the present case, the court noted that the alleged act was committed within the four walls of the petitioner's office and there were no public or independent persons, before whom Thamizhselvan was castigated.

The court added that when there was no independent witness, the SC/ST commission should not have entertained the complaint on bald allegations, merely because the complainant was a practicing Advocate. The court added that the commission should have handled the issue with more caution and circumspection.

Thus, noting that the complaint filed did not satisfy the essential ingredients, and that there were no materials evidencing that such acts had taken place, the court was inclined to quash the case. The court however gave liberty to Thamizhselvan to work out his remedies in manner known to law.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. P. Wilson, Senior Counsel for Mr. K. Sampath Kumar

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. R. Krishna Kumar, Mr. S. Sathia Chandran

Case Title: V Varun Kumar and Others v. P Thamizhselvan and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 114

Case No: W.P. NO. 30536 OF 2025