In a significant legal determination, the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that merely belonging to a Scheduled Caste (SC) or Scheduled Tribe (ST) does not automatically establish an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act), unless there is a deliberate intention to insult or humiliate an individual based on their caste identity. This judgment underscores the necessity of proving intent to humiliate a member of the SC/ST community to constitute an offence under the Act.
The case in question involved Bhawana Gupta, a journalist associated with Times Now, who sought to quash an FIR filed against her under the SC/ST Act. The complainant alleged that Gupta had used caste-based slurs during a political event. Gupta contended that she had no prior acquaintance with the complainant and was unaware of her caste affiliation, asserting that there was no intention or mens rea to insult based on caste.
Justice Anoop Chitkara, presiding over the case, emphasized that for an offence under the SC/ST Act to be established, mere membership of the victim in a Scheduled Caste is insufficient. There must be a deliberate intention to humiliate the individual because of their caste. The court observed that there was no evidence indicating that the alleged offence was committed solely because the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste. Consequently, the court found the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act unsustainable.
The court further noted that Gupta had no personal knowledge of the complainant's caste, as she was attending the event in her professional capacity and had not previously met the complainant. This lack of knowledge about the complainant's caste identity was significant in determining the absence of intent to humiliate based on caste. The court highlighted that the burden of proof lay with the complainant to establish that the accused was aware of the victim's caste, which was not demonstrated in this case.
Additionally, the court addressed allegations under Sections 279, 337, and 427 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) related to rash driving and causing damage. It was noted that Gupta was a passenger in the vehicle, not the driver, and there was no evidence to suggest she had any role in the alleged incident. The court deemed the invocation of these IPC sections against her as unfounded and quashed the FIR concerning these charges as well.
This ruling reinforces the principle that the SC/ST Act is designed to protect individuals from intentional acts of discrimination and humiliation based on their caste. However, the mere fact that a complainant belongs to an SC or ST community does not automatically imply that any adverse action against them is motivated by caste bias. The intent to humiliate or discriminate must be clearly established to constitute an offence under the Act.
The court's decision also underscores the importance of context and intent in cases alleging caste-based offences. It highlights that not all insults or intimidations directed at individuals from SC/ST communities qualify as offences under the Act unless they are specifically intended to humiliate them because of their caste. This interpretation aims to prevent the misuse of the SC/ST Act while ensuring that genuine cases of caste-based atrocities are addressed appropriately.
In conclusion, the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment clarifies that for an offence under the SC/ST Act to be established, there must be a clear intention to insult or humiliate an individual specifically because of their caste identity. This ruling serves as a crucial reference for future cases, ensuring that the application of the SC/ST Act remains focused on addressing genuine instances of caste-based discrimination and humiliation.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.