Uttering ‘Kutti-Chudi-Dhedni’ in Public View Against a Panchayat Member of Scheduled Caste Attracts Section 3(1)(r) SC/ST Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail

“The utterance of such words in a public place, particularly in the context of a dispute wherein the complainant was discharging her official duties as a Panchayat member, prima facie reflects the intention to insult and humiliate the complainant on account of her caste,” held Justice Sumeet Goel of the Punjab and Haryana High Court while dismissing an anticipatory bail appeal filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on October 16, 2025. The Court affirmed that the statutory bar under Section 18 of the Act was applicable, as a prima facie offence under Section 3(1)(r) was clearly made out from the contents of the FIR.

“Bar Under Section 18 Is Attracted When Caste-Based Abuse Is Public and Contextual—No Anticipatory Bail in Such Cases”: High Court Clarifies Legal Position

High Court was called upon to decide whether anticipatory bail could be granted to a woman accused of making caste-based derogatory remarks against a Scheduled Caste Panchayat Member, in public view. The appellant, Kiranjeet Kaur, had approached the High Court seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 67 dated 23.09.2025, registered at Police Station Sadar Budhlada, District Mansa, invoking Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act.

The FIR alleged that the complainant, Gurmail Kaur, a 65-year-old Panchayat Member belonging to the Scheduled Caste, was publicly abused and insulted with casteist slurs such as “Kutti-chudi-dhedni” by the appellant in front of multiple villagers. The incident was triggered by a dispute over the locking of a local garbage dumping ground, a site which villagers had also started using for cow dung cakes.

According to the FIR, the accused, enraged by the complainant’s act of locking the site, came to her house early in the morning, shouted loudly in public, and used abusive and caste-based language directed at the complainant while others were present at the nearby Gurdwara Sahib.

Allegations Are Politically Motivated, No Caste Intent Involved

Counsel for the appellant argued that the FIR was false and lodged at the behest of the current village Sarpanch, Sukhnaib Singh, who allegedly harboured enmity due to past civil and criminal litigation. It was further contended that the dispute was over access to the dumping site, not caste, and that the appellant had no intent to humiliate the complainant on the basis of caste.

It was also submitted that the appellant is a widow of an Army personnel, has clean antecedents, and had shown willingness to cooperate with the investigation. Reliance was placed on the decision of the High Court in Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab, 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 14105, to assert that not every abuse in a village dispute attracts the SC/ST Act unless caste-based intent is apparent.

Allegations Specific, Caste-Centric, and Made in Public—Prima Facie Attracts Section 3(1)(r)

Justice Sumeet Goel rejected the defence arguments, holding that the FIR clearly disclosed a prima facie offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act. The Court found that:

“The complainant, a Panchayat Member belonging to a Scheduled Caste community, was publicly abused by the appellant using caste-related derogatory language in the presence of several villagers.”

The fact that the abuse occurred in public view, specifically while the complainant was discharging her official functions as an elected representative, was considered significant. The Court also rejected the argument that the allegations were politically motivated, noting that:

“There are specific and categorical allegations in the FIR, duly supported by witnesses, leaving no ground to hold that the complaint is fabricated or motivated.”

The Court further observed that the language used in the FIR—“Kutti-chudi-dhedni”—was explicitly caste-based, and not mere generic abuse.

“Anticipatory Bail Under SC/ST Act Only If No Prima Facie Case Is Made Out”: High Court Reiterates Principles from Apex Court

In its detailed reasoning, the High Court revisited and summarised the governing legal principles as laid down in Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 6 SCC 454 and Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020) 4 SCC 727. While anticipatory bail is not outrightly barred under the SC/ST Act, it is permissible only where no prima facie offence is disclosed, or the allegations are false, malafide, or motivated.

Referring to its own earlier judgment in Arvind v. State of Haryana (CRA-S-3707-2023, decided on 01.04.2024), the Court reiterated:

“A Special Court cannot reject a plea for anticipatory bail solely on the ground of maintainability under Section 18. It must delve into the merits to determine whether a prima facie offence under the SC/ST Act is made out.”

In the present case, however, the allegations were found to be clear, specific, and corroborated by witnesses. Accordingly, the Court concluded:

“At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that a prima facie case is not made out… the nature and gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the appellant, essentially lead to unequivocal conclusion that the appellant does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.”

Appeal Dismissed, Anticipatory Bail Denied—Case Falls Squarely Within Statutory Bar

The High Court, applying the legal principles to the factual matrix, ruled:

“The allegations disclose a prima facie offence under the SC/ST Act and the bar under Section 18 of the said Act squarely applies.”

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal under Section 14-A of the Act, denied anticipatory bail, and disposed of all pending applications. The Court clarified that the observations were limited to the bail stage and would not affect the trial or investigation on merits.

Caste-Based Abuse in Public Office Context Invokes Full Rigour of SC/ST Act

This judgment underscores the strict application of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, especially where caste-based insults are hurled in public view against members discharging official duties. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that the legal bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18 is not merely procedural, but substantive, meant to uphold the dignity of Scheduled Castes and Tribes and protect them from social humiliation.

Where the utterances are specific, caste-centric, and made in public, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) stands attracted, and anticipatory bail must be denied, unless the complaint is demonstrably false or malicious—which was not the case here.

Date of Decision: 16 October 2025