The Allahabad High Court has observed that addressing a person by their profession, by itself, does not constitute an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act unless it is shown that the expression was used with deliberate intent to insult or humiliate the individual on the basis of caste.
The ruling was delivered by a single-judge Bench of Justice Anil Kumar while hearing a petition challenging a summoning order issued in August 2024 by a special SC/ST court in Gautam Buddha Nagar district.
The appellant had been summoned under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), along with Sections 3(1)(d) and 3(1)(dh) of the SC/ST Act. The case stemmed from a complaint filed by a woman who claimed she worked as a washerwoman for the appellant.
According to the complainant, when she demanded her wages, she was allegedly mistreated and subjected to caste-based remarks. The complaint specifically referred to the word “dhobin” (washerwoman) being used during the altercation, along with certain caste-related expressions.
After examining the material on record, the High Court noted that the only specific term directly attributed to the appellant was “dhobin”. The Bench observed that the dispute appeared to have arisen in the context of a wage demand and that there existed a contractual relationship between the parties, with the complainant engaged as a washerwoman.
The court held that merely referring to someone by their profession would not automatically attract the provisions of the SC/ST Act. For the Act to apply, it must be clearly demonstrated that the words were used with the intention of insulting or humiliating the person on the ground of caste.
The Bench emphasised that criminal liability under the SC/ST Act requires proof of specific intent to target a person’s caste identity, and that the context and circumstances in which words are used are crucial in determining whether an offence is made out.
The court also addressed the appellant’s argument that the trial court had improperly converted a protest petition into a complaint without expressly accepting or rejecting the police’s final report filed under Section 173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Rejecting this contention, the High Court clarified that it is not mandatory for a court to explicitly record disagreement with a police final report. If a protest petition is treated as a complaint, it inherently implies that the final report has not been accepted.
With these observations, the High Court partly allowed the petition. It quashed the summoning order and related proceedings under Sections 3(1)(d) and 3(1)(dh) of the SC/ST Act.
However, the court directed that proceedings under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the BNS (relating to assault, intentional insult and criminal intimidation) shall continue in accordance with law.
