Using Abusive Words Alone Isn’t SC/ST Act Violation, Clarifies Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has clarified that merely using abusive language does not constitute an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The law applies only when such words are caste-specific, publicly used, and intended to humiliate or insult the person.

Caste-Targeted Abuse Constitutes Offence
The Court stated that to invoke the SC/ST Act, the allegations must demonstrate that caste-specific terms were used abusively. Section 3(1)(s) of the Act requires the presence of a clear element of insult or humiliation against a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.

The bench emphasized that the language must be deliberately derogatory toward the person’s caste, generating caste-based insult or humiliation.

Reference to Public Humiliation
The Court referred to its earlier rulings under Section 3(1)(r), noting that offences occur when a member of SC/ST is intentionally humiliated or threatened in a public place.

Four Essential Elements for Offence under the Act
The Supreme Court outlined four fundamental criteria for constituting an offence:

1. The accused must not belong to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
2. The accused must intentionally insult or intimidate a member of SC/ST.
3. The action must be intended to humiliate the victim.
4. The act must occur in a public place.

This clarification provides clear legal boundaries, ensuring that the SC/ST Act targets caste-based insult rather than general abusive language.