KKN Gurugram Desk | In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has quashed a case under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) on the grounds that the alleged offence did not occur in “public view.” This decision underscores the legal interpretation of caste-based atrocities, particularly under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, which require the presence of third-party witnesses in a public setting for the charges to hold.

The ruling reflects a broader judicial stance on the ‘public view’ criterion, a crucial element in cases involving caste-based abuse and intimidation. The decision is also aligned with previous verdicts by the Supreme Court and Karnataka High Court, which have similarly emphasized the necessity of public visibility in establishing offences under the SC/ST Act.

Understanding the SC/ST Act & Its Legal Framework

The SC/ST Act, 1989, was enacted to prevent caste-based discrimination, atrocities, and violence against Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) individuals. The law provides stringent punishment for caste-based abuse, intimidation, and physical violence.

???? Key Sections in the Case:

???? Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act: Punishes individuals who intentionally insult or intimidate an SC/ST member with intent to humiliate them within public view.
???? Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act: Penalizes those who abuse an SC/ST member by caste name in a place within public view.

For these provisions to be legally upheld, the incident must be witnessed by at least one independent third party in a public setting.

Case Overview: Afshamaskar Laikhkan Pathan vs State of Maharashtra

In this case, the complainant alleged that she had been in a relationship with a man who promised to marry her but later got engaged to someone else. When she confronted him, she was allegedly assaulted and subjected to casteist abuse by his family members.

Following the incident, she lodged an FIR, including charges under:

✅ Section 3(1)(r) – Intentional insult and intimidation with intent to humiliate
✅ Section 3(1)(s) – Caste-based abuse in public view

However, the Bombay High Court quashed these charges, stating that no independent witness was present to validate that the alleged abuse took place in public view.

Bombay High Court’s Ruling: Key Takeaways

A Bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Rohit Joshi examined whether the incident met the ‘public view’ requirement under the SC/ST Act. Their key observations:

???? Caste-based insult or intimidation does not automatically constitute an offence unless it occurs in a public setting.
???? The incident must not only occur in a ‘public place’ but also be ‘within public view’.
???? The presence of an independent third-party witness is crucial to establish the crime.

???? SC Reference: Hitesh Verma vs State of Uttarakhand (2020)
The Bombay HC cited the Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling in Hitesh Verma vs State of Uttarakhand, which stated:

???? “For an offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) to be established, the alleged abuse, insult, or intimidation must occur in a place of public view, and the presence of independent witnesses at the time of the incident is necessary.”

Given that no third-party witness confirmed the allegations in this case, the court dismissed the SC/ST Act charges while allowing other charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to proceed.

‘Public View’ in SC/ST Act: A Recurring Legal Debate

This case is not the first where courts have interpreted the ‘public view’ clause in the SC/ST Act to dismiss cases.

???? Karnataka High Court Ruling (2023): Shivalingappa B Kerakalamatti vs State Of Karnataka

• The complainant claimed that he was assaulted with a cycle chain while being verbally abused with casteist remarks.
• However, the Karnataka HC dismissed the charges under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s), citing the absence of proof that the incident occurred in a publicly visible place.

???? Supreme Court Ruling (December 2024): Clarifying ‘Public View’

• The SC overturned SC/ST Act charges in a case where the alleged offence occurred in the backyard of a private residence, stating:
  ???? “A backyard or a private space does not qualify as a place of ‘public view’ under the SC/ST Act.”

These rulings suggest a judicial trend where cases lacking independent witness testimony and public setting are unlikely to stand trial under the SC/ST Act.

Implications of the Bombay HC Verdict

For Future SC/ST Cases

✅ Higher burden of proof for complainants – They must demonstrate that the caste-based abuse was publicly visible.
✅ Independent witnesses become crucial – Courts will require testimony from uninvolved third parties.
✅ More legal scrutiny of SC/ST cases – Accusations may face higher dismissal rates if lacking public visibility evidence.

For the Judiciary & Law Enforcement

✅ Police investigations must gather more evidence – FIRs must include clear statements from third-party witnesses.
✅ Judicial rulings set clearer standards – Courts are establishing precedents to differentiate genuine caste-based atrocities from private disputes.

Legal Experts’ Opinions on the ‘Public View’ Clause

Legal analysts argue that the ‘public view’ requirement is a double-edged sword:

???? Potential for Misuse
Some activists argue that this requirement creates legal loopholes, allowing accused individuals to escape prosecution if the crime is committed in a semi-private setting.

???? Safeguard Against False Cases
On the other hand, legal experts suggest that this requirement protects individuals from false or exaggerated accusations, ensuring that only genuine cases of public caste-based humiliation are prosecuted.

Final Thoughts: How This Case Shapes the Future of SC/ST Act Enforcement

The Bombay High Court’s ruling reinforces the importance of ‘public view’ in SC/ST Act cases, setting a precedent that may influence future judgments across India.

???? Key Takeaways from the Verdict:
✅ The presence of third-party witnesses is essential for an SC/ST Act offence to hold.
✅ Private altercations without public visibility do not qualify under Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s).
✅ This ruling aligns with Supreme Court precedents on the SC/ST Act.

As legal interpretations evolve, courts will continue refining the balance between protecting SC/ST individuals from caste-based atrocities and ensuring that the Act is not misused in personal disputes.

???? Stay tuned to KKNLive.com for the latest legal updates, court rulings, and social justice news! ????