Why Calcutta High Court said caste-based abuse over phone call doesn’t attract SC/ST Act

Justice Jay Sengupta was hearing plea filed by one Nurul Aras, who was seeking anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (direction for grant of bail to a person apprehending arrest) and was charged under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Justice Jay Sengupta called the case “peculiar” while disposing of the anticipatory bail application. (Image is enhanced using AI)

Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the said Act deal with the offence of intentionally insulting or intimidating a member of the SC/ST community by using caste-based abuses, with the intent to humiliate such person in any place within public view.

“The alleged abuses were hurled over the telephone and not in public view, the provisions of the special Act would not be prima facie attracted”, the court said, Calling it a “peculiar case”, the court noted that the accused was charged under offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, but other charges mentioned in the FIR were bailable.

Advocate Kunal Ganguly, appearing for Aras, argued that the application for anticipatory bail was maintainable as there was “no prima facie” case under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, since the FIR itself recorded that the alleged abuses were hurled over the telephone and not in “public view”.

He further emphasised that the other provisions mentioned in the FIR were bailable.

The high court held that anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act was not maintainable and disposed of the application by granting Aras the liberty to surrender before the concerned court and seek regular bail within four weeks.

The court, in its December 22 order, further directed that if such a bail application is filed, the same shall be considered in accordance with law, and clarified that the petitioner shall not be arrested during the said period of four weeks.

It is important to note that the Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently observed that caste-based hate speech does not just harm the “dignity” of the person or group targeted, but also “damages” the country itself while refusing to quash an FIR against a lawyer who was booked for hate speech.

Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj said in this case, “In a nation founded upon the ideals of equality, fraternity and respect for human dignity, caste-based hate speech not only wounds individual dignity but also imperils social harmony and the collective conscience of the country”.

On the other hand, the Telangana High Court had previously quashed criminal proceedings under the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against a businessman, observing that the required intention of the accused to humiliate the complainant based on his caste was absent, as the dispute is private in nature.

Justice Juvvadi Sridevi observed, in this case, that the dispute was fundamentally related to the event arrangements and monetary issues, making it “at best a private dispute” that “cannot be allowed to be converted into criminal proceedings under the special statute”.