'Not Every Insult To SC/ST Member Is Atrocity': Calcutta High Court Quashes Case, Says Workplace Disputes Cannot Be Criminalised

The Calcutta High Court has held that professional disagreements, administrative disputes or alleged workplace humiliation cannot automatically attract offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act unless there is clear, caste-based insult or intimidation in public view. Quashing criminal proceedings against a Sanskrit professor, the Court observed that “not every intentional insult” to a member of the Scheduled Caste community amounts to an atrocity under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act.

Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC and set aside the proceedings in S.C. & S.T. Case No. 10/21 arising out of Amherst Street Police Station case, holding that the allegations, even if taken at face value, did not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence under the 1989 Act.

The petitioner, a highly qualified academic who completed her B.A., M.A. and PhD in Sanskrit and had served as Head of the Department of Sanskrit at Sanskrit College & University, was accused by the complainant—an Assistant Professor belonging to the Scheduled Caste community—of professional jealousy and harassment. The complainant alleged that she excluded him from departmental decisions, stopped his classes, denied him examination duties, withheld academic information and humiliated him during an online meeting using offensive language. He claimed these acts were motivated by his caste identity and caused mental trauma.

After investigation, a charge sheet was filed under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act, and summons were issued, prompting the petitioner to seek quashing of the case as mala fide and legally untenable.

Examining the complaint and case diary, the Court found that the allegations essentially related to administrative and professional grievances within the department. It noted that none of the incidents described involved caste-based abuses or humiliation “in any place within public view,” which is a mandatory ingredient of the offence. The Court further observed that there was no specific assertion that the petitioner intentionally insulted or intimidated the complainant on the ground of his caste.

Relying on Supreme Court rulings including Gorige Pentaiah, Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, and Swaran Singh v. State, the Bench reiterated that the offence under Section 3(1)(r) requires: (i) the accused not being a member of SC/ST; (ii) intentional insult or intimidation; (iii) intent to humiliate on account of caste; and (iv) occurrence in public view. Mere knowledge of the victim's caste, or general workplace disputes, is insufficient.

The Court underscored that “all insults or intimidation of a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe will not amount to an offence unless such insult or intimidation is on the ground that the victim belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.” It found that even the alleged instance of calling the complainant “Adarsha Sir” could not be construed as derogatory or humiliating.

Observing that the complaint lacked any material to show caste-based targeting and that the dispute appeared to stem from professional differences, the Court held that continuation of the prosecution would amount to harassment and misuse of criminal law. Invoking the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Bench concluded that the case fell within the category where allegations, even if accepted entirely, do not constitute any offence.

Accordingly, the High Court quashed the charge sheet and all consequential proceedings pending before the Special Court, allowing the criminal revision.

Case Details: CRR 1188 of 2023

Case: Moumita Bhattacharya v. State of West Bengal & Anr.

Click here to read order