The Supreme Court has held that an alleged casteist slur made inside a closed room, without the presence or hearing of members of the public, would not satisfy the requirement of being uttered “within public view” under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta made the observation while quashing proceedings under Sections 3(1)(R) and 3(1)(S) of the SC/ST Act against a school manager.

The case arose from a dispute involving two students at a school. Their father had approached the school manager following the dispute. He alleged that the manager and school staff assaulted him and also used casteist slurs against him.

A police case was subsequently registered under the SC/ST Act and a chargesheet was filed. The school manager challenged the proceedings before the Allahabad High Court, but the High Court refused to interfere, finding that a prima facie case had been made out.

The matter then reached the Supreme Court.

Before the top court, the manager's counsel argued that the alleged casteist remarks were made inside a closed room. It was also pointed out that none of the witnesses had stated that any member of the public was present in the room or that anyone outside had heard the alleged remarks.

The Supreme Court examined the requirement under Sections 3(1)(R) and 3(1)(S), which penalise intentionally insulting or intimidating a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe with intent to humiliate them in a place within public view.

The Bench reiterated that an incident can be said to have occurred “within public view” when members of the public are present and are able to see or hear the alleged words or conduct.

However, merely because an incident takes place in a location connected with the public, it does not automatically mean that it occurred within public view. Where an incident takes place inside a closed room and no member of the public is present or able to hear what was said, the statutory requirement may not be satisfied.

In the present case, the Court noted that although school teachers had spoken about the dispute and altercation, none of them claimed to have been present when the alleged casteist remarks were made or to have heard them.

The Court also found no supporting material in the witness statements to establish that the alleged abuse had taken place within public view.

On this basis, the Supreme Court set aside the proceedings against the school manager under the SC/ST Act.

However, the Court clarified that proceedings relating to other alleged offences under the Indian Penal Code would continue.

The judgment once again highlights that for an offence under Sections 3(1)(R) and 3(1)(S) of the SC/ST Act, the allegation of a casteist insult by itself is not sufficient; the prosecution must also establish that the alleged act occurred within “public view” as required by the statute.