Casteist remarks in private spaces not an offence under SC/ST Act :Supreme Court

Mangalore Today News Network

New Delhi, Aug 21, 2026: The Supreme Court on Thursday held that uttering casteist abuse in private spaces does not meet the statutory requirement of being considered an offence under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, Live Law reported.

The case was filed against a manager of a school, accusing him of assaulting and hurling caste-based abuses at the father of two students.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta set aside an Allahabad High Court order which refused to quash proceedings under the Act against a school manager.

The apex court quashed the case proceedings, holding that the claims were made inside an enclosed room with no public access, and therefore did not satisfy statutory requirements.

The complainant had said in the FIR that he had gone to meet the school manager on January 24, 2020, after his son was injured in a quarrel with other students.

He also alleged that the school manager, with other staff, shouted casteist slurs at him and assaulted him with lathis, Live Law reported.

The FIR in the matter was registered on the next day on charges of rioting, causing hurt, wrongful confinement and intentional insult.

Along with the said charges, it also included Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s).

Live Law reported that the school manager had challenged the proceedings before the Allahabad High Court. He argued that the alleged incident took place inside room “A” in the school. He added that the room was enclosed, had no window and was not open to the public.

He also noted that the witnesses had not said they were inside the room when the casteist remarks were claimed to be made. Their statements only showed that a scuffle had taken place.

The court further noted, "It could thus be seen that, to be a place ’within public view’, the place should be open where the members of the public can witness or hear the utterance made by the accused to the victim. If the alleged offence takes place within the four corners of the wall where members of the public are not present, then it cannot be said that it has taken place at a place within public view."

It further added that the FIR did not attribute any caste-based slurs to the school manager in particular. "The material relied upon by the prosecution, at the highest, discloses a quarrel and scuffle between the parties. It does not disclose any specific caste-based utterance attributable to the appellant," the bench said.

The top court quashed the proceedings against the school manager under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act. It clarified that the case relating to the other alleged offences would proceed.