Bombay High Court Quashes Case Under SC/ST Act

February 1, 2025

In judgement, the Bombay High Court has quashed a case filed under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The court ruled that the alleged offences did not occur in “public view,” important requirement for prosecution under the Act. This ruling marks the importance of specific conditions that must be met for charges under the SC/ST Act to hold.

Background of the SC/ST Act

The SC/ST Act was enacted to prevent atrocities against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It aims to protect these communities from discrimination and violence. The Act outlines specific offences and their corresponding punishments. Key provisions require that certain acts of insult or intimidation must occur in public view to be prosecutable.

Case Overview – Afshamaskar Laikhkan Pathan vs State of Maharashtra

In the case at hand, the complainant alleged assault and casteist abuses after a failed relationship. She filed a First Information Report (FIR) citing offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. These sections specify that the offences must be committed in a public setting, witnessed by uninvolved individuals. The complainant’s claims lacked corroboration from any witnesses.

Court’s Rationale for Quashing the Case

The Bombay High Court, led by Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Rohit Joshi, stated that mere insults or intimidation do not constitute an offence under the Act unless they occur in public view. The court referenced a previous Supreme Court ruling, emphasising the necessity of independent witnesses to validate the claims. The absence of such evidence led to the quashing of the charges under the SC/ST Act, although other charges remained.

Related Case – Shivalingappa B Kerakalamatti vs State of Karnataka

A similar ruling was made by the Karnataka High Court in September 2023. In this case, the complainant was assaulted and abused with caste references. The court ruled that the alleged incident did not occur in a public place or in public view, thus failing to meet the criteria for prosecution under the SC/ST Act. This ruling reiterated the requirement for offences to be witnessed by third parties.

Supreme Court’s Interpretation of “Public View”

The Supreme Court has also addressed the “public view” requirement in various cases. It has consistently maintained that for charges under the SC/ST Act to be valid, the alleged offences must occur in a location where they can be observed by others. This interpretation has led to the dismissal of several cases where the conditions were not met.

« Previous Post