In a significant judgment, the Jharkhand High Court quashed an FIR lodged against a public servant accused of assaulting and using caste-based abuse against a woman, stating that a person cannot be treated as a Scheduled Caste (SC) or Scheduled Tribe (ST) member unless their caste or tribe is specifically included in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order or the relevant Presidential notifications.
Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary, presiding over the case, emphasized that the term 'Adivasi' is not a constitutionally recognized caste or tribe. He noted that unless the name of the caste or tribe is explicitly mentioned in the public notification made by the President of India, specifying the tribes or tribal communities, such a person cannot be treated as a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The court's decision was based on the absence of any material evidence indicating that the informant belonged to a notified Scheduled Tribe or Scheduled Caste. The only allegation against the petitioner was that he had referred to the woman as an "insane Adivasi." The court observed that the term 'Adivasi' does not find a place in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, specifically in Part XXII, which is applicable to the State of Jharkhand.
Furthermore, the court highlighted that there was no allegation in the FIR that the informant belonged to any of the castes mentioned in Part XXII of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. It was also not the case of the informant that she was a member of the Scheduled Castes. Under such circumstances, the court found merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of the SC/ST Act were not applicable in this case.
This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to the constitutional definitions and notifications when invoking the provisions of the SC/ST Act. The court reiterated that the Act is designed to protect the interests of marginalized sections of society and should not be misused as an instrument of persecution to settle personal scores.
The ruling also aligns with previous judgments emphasizing that the SC/ST Act should not be imposed for personal enmity. The courts have consistently held that the Act is a special law enacted to safeguard the interests of marginalized communities and should not be used as a tool for revenge or to settle personal disputes.
In conclusion, the Jharkhand High Court's decision reinforces the principle that the application of the SC/ST Act must be based on constitutionally recognized castes and tribes. It serves as a reminder that the Act's provisions are intended to protect genuine victims of caste-based atrocities and should not be misapplied in situations where the complainant's caste or tribe is not officially recognized under the Constitution.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.