Complainant's SC/ST Status Alone Cannot Trigger Atrocities Act, Says Supreme Court
The Supreme Court (SC) recently held that the mere fact of a complainant belonging to a Scheduled Caste (SC) or Scheduled Tribe (ST) community is not sufficient to attract the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The Court has reiterated that the offence must be committed specifically on grounds of the victim's caste or tribal identity for the Act to apply.
The judgment was delivered on July 22, by a bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta. The SC was hearing a petition challenging the initiation of criminal proceedings under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act, along with sections 294, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), arising from a domestic dispute between a man and his estranged wife.
The appellant had approached the SC seeking quashing of the proceedings, arguing that there was no caste-based element to the dispute and that the SC/ST Act had been wrongly invoked. The Madhya Pradesh High Court had earlier declined to interfere with the criminal proceedings.
Setting aside the High Court's order, the Supreme Court clarified that for an offence to fall within the purview of Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act, there must be a specific intention to insult or intimidate a person belonging to the SC or ST communities, and such conduct must occur in a place within public view. More importantly, the insult or intimidation must be 'on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe".
The bench observed that the statute cannot be invoked solely because the complainant is a member of a protected community. The underlying motivation behind the alleged act must be to target the individual due to their caste identity. In the absence of such intent, the invocation of the SC/ST Act would not be legally sustainable.
In the present case, the Court found that the allegations arose out of a matrimonial discord and that there was no specific averment or material to show that the alleged abuse or insult was targeted at the complainant because of her caste. The complaint lacked any assertion that the alleged acts were committed with caste-based malice or occurred in public view with the intention of humiliating the complainant on account of her caste.
The Court relied on its earlier decision in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020), where it had similarly held that disputes of a purely private nature, such as property or domestic issues, do not attract the provisions of the SC/ST Act unless there is a clear indication of caste-based animus. In that case, the Court had cautioned against the misuse of the protective statute and emphasised that its application must be based on objective facts that demonstrate the commission of an offence specifically aimed at humiliating or oppressing a person due to their SC/ST status.
Reiterating this position, the Court held that allowing the proceedings to continue under the SC/ST Act in the absence of necessary legal ingredients would be a misuse of process and would dilute the purpose of the statute. The judgment underscores the principle that special legislation enacted to protect marginalised communities must be applied with precision and not be extended to situations where its core requirements are not met.
The Supreme Court proceeded to quash the proceedings under the SC/ST Act while leaving the charges under the Indian Penal Code to be decided on merits before the trial court. The decision reiterates the judiciary's approach to ensuring that while the rights of historically oppressed communities must be safeguarded, the criminal law must not be weaponised in situations where the essential statutory conditions are absent.
This court has sifted cases where allegations under the SC/ST Act are made without establishing a direct link to caste-based motivation.
view comments
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
21 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Eknath Khadse's son-in-law arrested during drug party in Pune
Pune Police on Sunday arrested seven people, including Pranjal Khewalkar, son-in-law of senior NCP (SP) leader Eknath Khadse, after busting an alleged drug party at a studio apartment in an upmarket area of Kharadi. The raid was carried out around 3:40 am following a tip-off received by the Crime Branch. Blood samples of all seven accused have been sent for forensic analysis to determine whether they had consumed narcotics. (HT) According to police, the raid led to the seizure of 2.70 grams of a cocaine substance, 70 grams of ganja, 10 mobile phones, two cars, hookah sets, liquor bottles, and various party paraphernalia—all worth approximately ₹41.35 lakh, police said. Blood samples of all seven accused have been sent for forensic analysis to determine whether they had consumed narcotics. The accused include Khewalkar, a 41-year-old MD in medicine, and husband of NCP (SP) state unit chief of women wing, resident of Hadapsar; along with Nikhil Popatani, 35, involved in the cigarette business; Sameer Sayyad, 41, who works in hardware materials business; Sachin Bhombe, 42, a private employee; Shripad Yadav, 27, a contractor; and two young women identified as Isha Singh, 22, from Aundh, and Prachi Sharma, 23, from Mahalunge. Police said the arrested individuals knew each other and had been in contact through calls and messages. Preliminary findings suggest the group had attended a party at a well-known pub in the city before assembling at the rented studio apartment. Investigators confirmed that three rooms had been booked in the building from July 25 to July 28, each costing ₹10,357 per night. Around 45 minutes before the raid, all seven had gathered in the flat. Following the arrests, police searched Khewalkar's bungalow in Hadapsar, Sai Krupa, and seized laptops, CDs, and other items. Crime Branch officials revealed that Popatani and Yadav have criminal records. Popatani was booked in 2023 by Kondhwa police under IPC sections 420 and 34, and sections 66(c) and 66(d) of the IT Act, reportedly for online betting. Yadav was booked in 2022 by the Bund Garden police under the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act. A Crime Branch officer said an earlier attempt to detain the group on Friday had failed. However, based on fresh information, they moved in on Saturday night and arrested the seven with drug-like substances. 'The police have registered a case under sections 8(c), 21(b), 22(b)(ii)(a), and 27 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, and sections 7(2) and 20(2) of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA), at the Kharadi police station,' said deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime) Nikhil Pingale. Police said they are now trying to identify three more people reportedly seen at the apartment during the party,' said NCP (SP) leader Eknath Khadse, reacting to the arrest of his son-in-law, said he had not spoken to him and was aware of the incident only through media reports. 'If a fair investigation reveals it was a rave party and my son-in-law is guilty, I will not defend him. But the police must act impartially. The perception among people is that police can do anything, so let the truth come out through forensic and blood reports,' Khadse said. Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis said he had seen media reports but had not yet received an official briefing. 'Preliminary information suggests that a rave party was busted and some narcotics were found,' he said. Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar said the police were acting as per rules and anyone found guilty would face consequences. MP Supriya Sule also reacted to the case, saying her party stood behind Rohini Khadse, wife of the arrested Khewalkar. Sule expressed concern over the possibility of tampering with reports, especially in light of past incidents at Sassoon Hospital. 'We will ensure a full investigation takes place, but my concern remains with how evidence is handled,' she said. Officials said the investigation is ongoing, with police verifying the identities of others who may have attended the party and reviewing communications.
Indian Express
21 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Uncertainty around US tariffs will not be over after August 1, even with signed trade deals
The US tariff saga has gone through many twists and turns. And many more are likely left. The ratcheting up of tariffs last month is broader and higher than expected. In late May, the view was that while the extant US average tariff rate was around 13-14 per cent, it was headed towards 18-20 per cent. Much of the increase was expected to be focused on ASEAN, where the tariff rate would be raised to that of China's to eliminate transshipment of Chinese exports to the US via the region. While those on Vietnam and Indonesia were in line with expectations, the additional tariffs on Brazil, Canada, and Mexico were not. Nor was the higher 50 per cent rate on copper. However, negotiations are ongoing, including with India, the EU, and Korea. If this week's Japan deal is any guide, tariffs on these economies will likely be half of the threatened levels. But, even at the reduced rate, if these, along with those on EU and the likely extensions of global sectoral tariffs to semiconductors and pharmaceuticals, are realised, then the effective tariff rate could well exceed 20 per cent. All eyes are therefore on August 1, which is the new deadline set by the administration for countries to finalise trade deals. But there is an upcoming and surprisingly overlooked event that could easily make these trade deals moot and plunge the tariff discussions into more uncertainty. On May 28, the US Court of International Trade (USCIT) ruled that tariffs imposed using the provisions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) overstepped the authority granted by the Act. The ruling did not consider the current conditions in the US to be a 'state of emergency,' which is needed to invoke IEEPA, to be convincing nor the use of tariffs to address it. Tariffs could be imposed, if the government so desired, but via the other options at its disposal. Not IEEPA. A federal appeals court granted the government a stay on the order and is slated to begin hearing arguments on the appeal on July 31. All the universal, reciprocal, and fentanyl-related tariffs are based on IEEPA. The tariffs unaffected are the Section 301 tariffs on China imposed under Trump 1.0 and extended by the Biden administration, and the global sectoral tariffs on aluminum, autos and auto parts, copper, and steel that were imposed under Section 232. It is unclear how the appeals court will rule. But regardless of the decision, either party is likely to move the case to the Supreme Court. If the tariffs under IEEPA are eventually disallowed by the US Supreme Court, the government will shift to other options. Tariffs are central to this administration's economic agenda and will thus be pursued. Unlike those under IEEPA, the tariffs under the other options are more cumbersome, limited in scope, and significantly more resource intensive. But they can be implemented in a compressed time frame if the administration so desires. A potential sequence of such actions could be the following. Use Section 122 to impose tariffs of 15 per cent for 150 days on all countries (justified to address balance of payments needs or to prevent a significant depreciation of the dollar). At the same time, ratchet up the tariffs on China that were imposed under Section 301 in Trade War 1.0 by both the Trump and Biden administrations. Keep tariffs on steel and aluminum at 50 per cent (as on copper) and raise that on autos from 25 per cent to 50 per cent. Hasten the ongoing Section 232 (sector specific on grounds on national economic security) investigations into semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and lumber to bring these under the tariff net of 25 per cent – 50 per cent. Use Section 338 to impose tariffs on countries that are deemed to discriminate specifically against US commercial interests (such as digital services taxes by Australia, the EU, Canada, India, and others, although the taxes are imposed on other countries too). Complete Section 301 investigations on large trading partners (some are ongoing, for example, on the EU and Brazil). These investigations are resource intensive as they need to first identify the specific policy of a trading partner that is the basis of 'unfair competition 'and then quantify the 'harm' that such policies impose on US consumers for each product and for each country. The tariff rate needs to be commensurate with the harm caused and, thus, differ, from product to product for each country. Finally, roll all tariffs under Sections 301 and 232. As one can imagine, this is an arduous and uncertain process. However, the direction of travel is more certain — the average effective tariff rate is likely to settle close to 20 per cent. Needless to say, the country- and product-specific impact of Sections 301 and 232 tariffs could be vastly different than under IEEPA. Markets so far have largely shrugged off the announced new tariffs. This is understandable given the quick deescalation after the strong market and corporate reaction to the Liberation Day tariffs; the possibility that the August 1 deadline is postponed; and the eventual negotiated tariff rates could be different from those announced. However, a court ruling on IEEPA could well turn both the August 1 deadline and the trade deals moot, including potentially that with India. If the basis of these deals, that is, IEEPA, is no longer admissible, then we are headed for renegotiations with tariffs under sections 301 and 232. These could be starkly different than those that are being negotiated now. The uncertainty around US tariffs will not be over after August 1, even with signed trade deals. US courts might well upset the best laid plans of mice and men. Continued uncertainty is the only certainty. The writer is Chief Emerging Markets Economist, J P Morgan. Views are personal
NDTV
35 minutes ago
- NDTV
Bihar Voter List Revision Issue In Supreme Court Today: 10 Points
New Delhi: The controversial Special Intensive Revision or SIR of voter lists in Bihar ahead of the assembly election has been challenged in the Supreme Court and the matter would be heard by a two-judge bench today. Here are the top 10 points from this big story: The petitioners have argued that the SIR exercise would lead to large-scale disenfranchisement of voters. Various opposition parties in Bihar have claimed the disenfranchisement will benefit the BJP as the state machinery will target people opposed to the ruling alliance. The Election Commission, which is conducting the exercise, has argued that it is doing its constitutional duty by weeding the voters' list of people who are dead, migrated of registered multiple times. The Commission has also assured that no name will be deleted from the list without a due process and there will be month after the publication of the draft list on August 1 to hear objections and make changes. The petitioners have alleged that much of the disenfranchisement is happening due to lack of proper documents. The Supreme Court had asked the poll body to consider three documents for SIR -- Aadhaar, Electoral Photo Identity Card, and ration card. The court has pointed out that they are foundational records to obtain any of the 11 documents, including residence and caste certificates, listed by the Election Commission for voter verification. The Election Commission has argued that Aadhaar, Electoral Photo Identity Card, and ration card could easily be faked. At a joint press conference with leaders of CPI(ML) Liberation, RJD and CPM, Congress's Abhishek Manu Singhvi said the exercise has become a "citizenship test" and questioned its legality. "This is not a matter of political obstinacy. It is not a matter of institutional arrogance. Please reconsider it," he said. The Election Commission said on Sunday that 22 lakh voters in Bihar have died, 36 lakh people have either permanently shifted or not found, and seven lakh were found to have enrolled at multiple places.
