In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court held that using abusive language does not by itself amount to an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court clarified that such conduct attracts the Act only when the abuse is made with a clear intention to humiliate or insult a person specifically because of their caste. Mere insults, even if the person abusing is aware of the victim’s caste, are not sufficient unless there is a deliberate caste-based motive.

Justices JB Pardiwala and Alok Aradhe quashed criminal proceedings against the appellant, criticizing both the trial court and Patna High Court for wrongly invoking the SC/ST Act, as the FIR and charge-sheet did not show that any caste-based abuse or threat was attributed to him.

 The bench cited key provisions from Section 3 of the Act, which outline punishments for 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;]”.

Background:

The  appeal arose  from a Patna High Court order  on 15 February 2025, which upheld a trial court's decision to issue  summons despite the appellant's request to quash the case. The case originated from an FIR alleging caste-based abuse and assault at an Anganwadi centre.

The appellant was charged under IPC Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 and 34, as well as Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. The complainant, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste, alleged that a group of persons used casteist slurs and issued threats. 

However, the Supreme Court held that the allegations against Mahto were vague and unclear, and that there was no direct material linking him to any caste-motivated act.

Relying on its earlier decision in Shajan Skaria v. The State of Kerala & Anr., the Court explained the conditions required to attract Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act.

First, the complainant must be a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. Second, the alleged insult or intimidation must be directly connected to that caste identity. As the Court put it, “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.”

With respect to Section 3(1)(s), the Court emphasised that the abuse must clearly refer to the caste name and must occur in public view. The allegations must show that the slurs were linked to caste references. 

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.”

Court’s Findings & Ruling:

In the end, the Court found  that there was no material to show that the appellant’s actions were motivated by the complainant’s caste. The Court observed that “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 Court further held that “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.”

Accordingly, the Court concluded, “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.”

Case Details:KESHAW MAHTO @ KESHAW KUMAR MAHTO VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.