Insult or Intimidation

Insult or Intimidation by Non SC/ST person to humiliate SC/ST person in any place without public view is not an offence

The history of India is nothing but a history of a mortal conflict

Between Buddhism and Brahmanism

-Dr. B.R. Ambedkar

Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma V. State of Uttarkhand, held that, if an offense committed outside the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view.

On contrary, the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then it would not be an offense since it is not in the public view.

In this case, petitioner challenged FIR was lodged for the Offences under section 452,504,506 and Section 3(1) (X) of the SC/ST Act 1989. Said FIR was over land disputes which were before the civil court. Applicant entered illegally into four walls of respondent’s building and started hurling abuses on the respondent and gave death threats and used castes remarks/abuse and took away the construction material. The applicant also said that you are persons of bad caste and that we will not let you live in this area. Cognizance was taken by the trial court...

The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the disputes relating to the property are pending before the civil court and FIR lodged by the respondent is only to harass the appellant and to abuse the process of Law. Further Appellant argued that the report submitted by police does not disclose the cases of the informant nor the allegation are that they made in public view. Also, offending words are not purported to be made for the reason that informants a person belonging to the scheduled caste.

Learned counsel for the state and respondent argued that in present fact appellant and his family are encroachers on the respondent land. Against the backdrop of these facts, learned counsel refers to the statement of object and reasons for the enactment of the SC/ST Act. The object of SC/ST Act 1989 is to punish the violators who inflict indignities, humiliations, and harassment and commit the offense as defined u/Sect (3) of SC/ST Act.

In modern India, discrimination by the so-called non-SC/ST community continued and ended in physical as well as verbal assault of SC/ST community who are powerless financially, emotionally, and socially. This Act includes 22 types of offenses relating to various types of discriminative treatment, abusive treatment, and inhuman treatment, and degrading treatment with the people of the SC/ST community. Such inhuman treatment and abusive treatment break the self-respect and self-esteem of the SC/ST community. This Act includes offenses like denial of an economic, democratic, and social right, discrimination on the basis of caste, exploitation on the basis of caste, and using bad language against a person because of caste.

Sect.3 (1) (X) of SC/ST Act 1989 stipulates that whoever intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a number of a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe in any place within public view. Sect.3 (1) (X) of Act has two basic ingredients

I) intentionally insult or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe AND

II) In any place within the purview of public view.

In this case, the Supreme Court Interpreted the ingredients of the sect.3 (1) (X) of the SC/ST Act 1989 and recommended the case of Swaran Singh. In Swaran Singh case Court observed that if any remarks were made by the non-SC/ST person against SC/ST person within four-wall or inside the building it would not be an offense since it is not in public view. And If an offense is committed outside the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view.

Analysis of SC’s judgment on interpretation of “any place within public view”.

Article 17 of the Constitution of India, which not only abolishes untouchability but also guaranteed social justice and dignity to SCs and STs, who were for centuries deprived of social equality and forced to lead an undignified life. It is the duty of the state to protect the fundamental right to life with dignity of people As well as there is a duty of citizens not to in dignifying to other people on the basis of caste and religion as everyone is entitled to dignity and reputation.

The courts aim to interpret the law in such a manner that every citizen is ensured justice to all. But in this case, the Supreme Court erred to interpret the Statute and failed to determine a clear and explicit meaning of the phrases used by the legislature and at the same time remove all the doubts. In this case, Supreme Court gave the literal meaning of Sect 3 (1) (X) of the SC/ ST Act which leads to some kind of ambiguity, injustice, inconvenience, inequality with the respondent. The court should modify the meaning to the extent of injustice or absurdity caused and no further to prevent consequences. But in this case, the court interpreted the word “Place within view of the public” as not justified. Because the purpose of the Act is to recognize the continuing gross indignities and offenses against SC/ST. Act Clearly emphasized the intention of the government to deliver justice to these communities through proactive efforts to enable them to live in a society with dignity and self-esteem and without fear or violence or suppression from the Non-SC/ST Caste.

Literal interpreting statute “place in public view” leads to a lack of witness which hamper the investigation. So the crime takes place in a private place where no witness available leads to injustice to the victim. Indian Criminal law demands witnesses to investigate the matters. The Indian government does not accept circumstantial evidence easily. To give complete justice court has to go with circumstantial evidence which is produced by the victim. The court should not go with the word “place with a public view” literally. The decision given by the Supreme Court made injustice to the victim. In many judgments, I have seen that there is a tendency to accept evidence from the Non-SC/ST Community. In many cases, courts do not consider Relatives and friends as public but consider them as an interested party. So rejecting relatives and friends as a witness is itself Atrocity. It means the court does not give weight to relatives (SC/ST) Friends for SC/ST. Court expect evidence from Non-SC/ST public who already in dominance in nature with SC/ST. If Non-SC/ST people do come forward as a witness then there is no need of Atrocity Act. A good person cannot come forward to become a witness in a court of law. In these circumstances how can SC/ST people expect justice from Judiciary? Word itself is the obstacle to get justice to SC/ST. It is a huge miscarriage of Justice done by the Supreme Court.

SC/ST community has to face social barriers and political barriers to get complaints registered for atrocity which is committed by Non-SC/ST community. The judgment of the court had added one more barrier by saying that abusive language on caste is made inside a building in front of the public except relatives and friends is not an offense since it is not in the public view.

The identity and way of life of SC/ST are respected by the constitution in text and spirit. The Supreme Court ought to have taken note of this in proper words. The court seems to have forgotten or perhaps ignored the purpose of the Act and the ingredients of section 3(1) (x) of the SC/ST act 1989. The right to live with dignity and freedom has been won by SC/ST after a huge struggle and sacrifices.

Conclusion

The Act was enacted to improve the social, economic, and political life standard of the SC/ST community as they have been subjected to various offenses like indignities, humiliations, and harassment. They have been deprived of life and property. The Act is thus intended to punish the acts of the non-vulnerable against vulnerable sections of society for the reason that they belong to a particular community. But the Said judgment set the wrong precedent. Supreme Court made barriers to get justice. Indirectly court accepted the castes remarks inside the four walls of the building. Supreme Court erred to interpreted Section 3(1) (X) of the SC/ST Act.ST/ST people due to backwardness hardly muster the courage to lodge even an FIR less chance to file a false FIR. In this case, it was found to be false FIR due to faulty investigation or for other various reasons including human failing irrespective of caste factors. There may be certain cases which may be false that can be ground for interfering court, but the law cannot be changed due to such misuse or technical error. So in this case Supreme Court erred in law to interpret the word “Within public view”. The decision of the Supreme Court made the Act toothless.

Authur- Adv. Pramodini Kamble Kadam