Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House

“If caste-based abuses occur within the four corners of a wall where the public is not present, it cannot be said to have taken place in public view” —  Supreme Court delivered a crucial judgment interpreting Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, holding that allegations of caste-based abuse must satisfy the essential condition of having occurred “within public view”. Where the complaint categorically states that the abuses were made inside the complainant’s house, without the presence of any public, the offence under Section 3(1)(s) is not made out, the Court ruled.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta partly allowed the appeal, quashing the summoning order under the SC/ST Act, but allowed the trial to continue under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

“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,” the Court reiterated, quoting from its earlier judgment in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand.

Caste Abuse Inside Private Home Not Atrocity Under Section 3(1)(s): No Public View, No Offence

The case arose from a complaint by a woman belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, who alleged that the appellants had abused, assaulted, and outraged her modesty, first while she was sweeping the area and later inside her home. She claimed that the accused entered her house, hurled casteist insults, and even assaulted her son the next day. The police allegedly did not act on her complaint, leading her to approach the Special Judge under Section 156(3) CrPC, which resulted in summons being issued under Sections 323, 504 IPC and Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.

When the High Court refused to quash the summoning order, noting that part of the incident occurred outside the house and in public view, the matter reached the Supreme Court.

The top Court, however, closely examined the original complaint, and found no mention of public presence at the time of the alleged caste abuse. The allegations clearly pointed to the incident occurring inside the complainant’s home.

“The house of the complainant cannot be considered to be within public view,” the Court held. “The complaint or the statement recorded under Section 200 CrPC contains no specific averment that the caste-based abuses were hurled at a place within public view.”

Relying on Karuppudayar v. State (2025 INSC 132) and Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand [(2020) 10 SCC 710], the Court emphasized that ‘public view’ requires the presence of members of the public who can see or hear the act. It is not enough for the act to occur in an area that might be publicly accessible; the actual presence and perception of the public is essential.

Appellate Courts Must Scrutinize Complaint At Face Value When Essential Ingredients Are Missing

The Court also took note of the limited but vital scope of appellate powers under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST Act. While acknowledging that such powers must be exercised cautiously, it clarified that where the allegations themselves fail to disclose the basic ingredients of the offence, appellate courts are justified in intervening.

“The appellate court has to examine the contents of the complaint as they stand,” the Court said. “In the facts of the present case, the High Court ought to have exercised its appellate powers to quash the summoning order with respect to offences under the provisions of the SC/ST Act.”

Accordingly, it held:

“A careful reading of the complaint makes it evident that the alleged caste-based abuses were uttered inside the premises, in the presence of the appellants and Respondent No. 2. Therefore, the essential requirement of the offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act is not satisfied.”

Trial Under IPC Will Continue: Assault Allegations Not Quashed

While setting aside the summoning order insofar as Section 3(1)(s) is concerned, the Court refused to interfere with the prosecution under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) of the IPC.

The complaint alleged physical assault, tearing of clothes, and threats. These were not dependent on whether the act occurred in public view and were considered sufficient to proceed under IPC.

The Court concluded:

“Proceedings initiated against the appellants under the Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act are hereby quashed. However, the trial insofar as it pertains to the remaining offences under the IPC shall proceed in accordance with law.”

Mere Allegation of Caste Abuse Not Enough Without Public View

This judgment marks another clear reaffirmation that mere allegations of caste abuse, without establishing that the abuse occurred “in public view”, are not sufficient to invoke Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. The Court emphasized strict compliance with statutory ingredients, shielding individuals from misuse of stringent provisions where basic thresholds are not met.

Date of Decision: 08 December 2025