For SC/ST Act Offence, Insult Must Be On Account Of Victim Belonging To SC/ST Community : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that abusive language alone is not an offence under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, unless it is used with the intent to humiliate a person by their caste, and mere insult, even with knowledge of caste, is not punishable without such specific intent.

A Bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Alok Aradhe set aside the criminal proceedings against the appellant, holding that both the trial court and the High Court erred in proceeding under the SC/ST Act when neither the FIR nor the charge-sheet even remotely alleged any act of caste-based insult or intimidation attributable to him.

The Court reproduced the relevant provisions from the SC/ST Act, which prescribes the punishment for offences and atrocities:

“3. Punishments for offence,s atrocities.—

[(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,— xxx

(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 caste name in any place within public view;]”

The Case

The appeal was filed against a Patna High Court order dated 15 February 2025, which had refused to interfere with the trial court's summoning order. The High Court had dismissed Mahto's plea seeking quashing of proceedings initiated on the basis of an FIR alleging caste-based abuse and assault at an Anganwadi centre.

The appellant had been charged under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC, and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. The complainant, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste community, alleged that a group of accused persons abused him using casteist slurs and threatened him.

However, the Supreme Court found that the allegations against the appellant were conspicuously vague and lacked any specific attribution of criminal conduct.

For Offences Punishable under Section 3(1)(r)

Taking reference from the recent case of Shajan Skaria v. The State of Kerala & Anr., the Court explained that for convicting a person under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, two conditions should be me,t i.e.,

firstly, the fact that the complainant belonged to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, and

secondly, any insult or intimidation towards the complainant must be on account of such person being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.

“In other words, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) cannot stand merely on the fact that the informant/complainant is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, unless the insult or intimidation is with the intention to humiliate such a member of the community.”, the court added.

For Offences Punishable under Section 3(1)(s)

Further, “to constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(s) it would be necessary that the accused abuses a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe “by the caste name” in any place within public view. Thus, the allegations must reveal that abuses were laced with caste name, or the caste name had been hurled as an abuse.”, the court explained.

“It has to be gathered from the intentional insult towards the caste, and the content. The content under Section 3(1)(s) are the abuses hurled at a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. However, the intent with which the abuses were hurled must be found to be denigrating towards the caste, resulting into a feeling of caste-based humiliation.”, the court added.

Decision

Applying the law, the Court found “that there is nothing on record to indicate that the alleged acts of the appellant were motivated for the reason that the complainant is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. Neither the FIR nor the chargesheet contains any whisper of an allegation of insult or intimidation by the appellant herein, let alone one made with the intention to humiliate the complainant.”

“The allegations levelled in the FIR, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie, constitute an offence under either Section 3(1)(r) or under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.”, the court added.

“In view of the above, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and the criminal prosecution against the appellant herein is hereby quashed.”, the court ordered.

Cause Title: KESHAW MAHTO @ KESHAW KUMAR MAHTO VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 62

Click here to download order

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Abhisek Mohanty, Adv. Mr. Ishan Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Ansh Rajauria, Adv. Mr. Anupam Mishra, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AOR Mr. Pranjal Sharma, Adv. Mr. Kashif Irshad Khan Faridi, Adv.