Casteist slurs made in private not offence under SC/ST Act, says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that uttering casteist slurs in private does not constitute an offence under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, according to reports from Live Law. In a decision delivered by a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, the court overturned an Allahabad High Court order that had denied quashing criminal proceedings against a school manager. The case originated from an allegation that the manager, along with other staff, had assaulted a complainant and hurled casteist slurs during a confrontation involving the complainant's son. The incident reportedly occurred on January 24, 2020, when the complainant visited the school manager following an altercation between his son and other students. According to the First Information Report, the complainant claimed that he was subjected to physical assault using lathis and verbal abuse, including casteist slurs. The FIR was lodged the following day, citing multiple charges, including rioting, causing hurt, wrongful confinement, and intentional insult, alongside Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act. Section 3(1)(r) of the Act criminalizes the intentional insult or humiliation of a member of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in a public place, while Section 3(1)(s) penalizes the use of caste names to abuse individuals from these communities in public spaces. The school manager contested the proceedings before the Allahabad High Court, asserting that the alleged incident took place in an enclosed room with no access to the outside world. He further contended that the witnesses had not confirmed their presence during the alleged casteist remarks, noting that their accounts only described a general quarrel. In April 2023, the Allahabad High Court rejected the manager’s challenge, leading him to seek intervention from the Supreme Court. During the hearing, the Supreme Court referenced its prior rulings, emphasizing that a location qualifies as “within public view” when members of the public can observe or hear the alleged offensive remarks. The court clarified that if the incident occurs in a secluded space devoid of public presence, it cannot be classified as occurring in a public setting. The bench observed that the FIR failed to specify any caste-based slurs attributed directly to the school manager. Teachers who testified described a “scuffle” but did not confirm witnessing or hearing the alleged casteist remarks. The court concluded that their mere presence on school grounds does not suffice to establish that the remarks were made in a public area. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the proceedings under the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, though it stated that the case related to other charges will proceed. Separately, the Supreme Court also addressed a legal dispute concerning the rights of senior citizens. A bench led by Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe affirmed that tribunals established under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, possess the authority to issue eviction orders when necessary to safeguard the well-being of elderly individuals. This ruling followed an appeal by Ravi Kant Gupta, whose 81-year-old mother had been compelled to relocate due to his son's refusal to allow her to reside in the family home. Gupta had sought the eviction of his son from the property, claiming that the son had caused disturbances and prevented his mother from staying there. Authorities initially issued eviction orders, which were later overturned by the Allahabad High Court, which deemed the tribunals lacked the power to enforce such measures. The Supreme Court, however, reinstated the eviction orders, affirming that the tribunals have the legal capacity to act in the interest of senior citizens' welfare. The court emphasized that the Act is grounded in constitutional principles aimed at ensuring dignity, respect, and security for the elderly, drawing upon precedents such as the 2021 ruling in S Vanitha vs Deputy Commissioner.