SC/ST Act and Casteist Slurs in the Digital Domain [Prelims Bits]

02 Oct 2026

Tags: Prelims   Current events of national and international importance

Source: The Indian Express

Context: The Calcutta High Court has held that casteist slurs made on social media can attract provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

• The Court held that the statutory requirement of “public view” is not restricted to physical spaces and can extend to the digital domain.
• The ruling comes amid recent Supreme Court observations that not every caste-related remark automatically constitutes an offence under the SC/ST Act; the statutory conditions must be carefully established.
• Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) criminalise intentionally insulting, intimidating or abusing a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe with reference to their caste in any place within public view.
• To establish these offences, three key conditions must be satisfied:
  (i) the accused is not a member of an SC/ST community; (ii) the act is intended to humiliate the victim on the basis of caste; and (iii) the incident occurs in a place within public view.
• In cases involving social media, the central legal question is therefore whether the digital communication can satisfy the requirement of “public view.”
• In the case before the Calcutta High Court, an SC complainant alleged that two persons from general-caste communities had used casteist expletives against him on Facebook.
• Police subsequently filed a closure report, stating that Facebook had not provided the required user details.
• A special court at Alipore rejected the complainant's challenge to the closure report.
• The High Court set aside the special court's order and criticised the reasoning adopted by the lower court.
• Justice Uday Kumar held that the concept of “public view” transcends physical space into the digital domain.
• Thus, an online platform can potentially constitute the relevant setting for applying Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s).

Supreme Court Interpretation of “Public View”

Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020)

• The Supreme Court held that “public view” refers to a situation where members of the public can witness or hear the alleged utterance.
• A caste-based insult occurring inside a private space, where members of the public are not present, would not automatically satisfy the requirement of public view.
• Therefore, the location and circumstances in which the alleged insult occurs are crucial for establishing the offence.

Ramkrishna Chauhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh

• The Supreme Court recently quashed proceedings under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) against a school manager.
• It held that the requirement of public view depends on whether the alleged utterance was made in circumstances where members of the public could witness or hear it.
• The mere fact that an incident occurs within a school premises does not, by itself, establish that it occurred within public view.
• This reinforces the principle that the statutory ingredients of the offence must be specifically satisfied, rather than assuming that every caste-related statement constitutes an offence.

Kerala High Court: Need for Dynamic Interpretation

• In Sooraj V. Sukumar v. State of Kerala (2022), the Kerala High Court observed that courts should not interpret legislation as though society and technology have remained unchanged since the law was enacted.
• It described the SC/ST Act as an “ongoing statute”, whose interpretation may need to accommodate technological developments.
• A restrictive interpretation that fails to account for new forms of communication could undermine the protective purpose of the legislation.

Why the Digital-Domain Question Matters

• Social media has transformed the meaning of public communication, allowing statements made online to potentially reach a large and undefined audience.
• The legal challenge is to determine whether the circumstances of an online post, message or comment satisfy the statutory requirement of public view.
• At the same time, the Supreme Court's decisions underline that mere visibility or presence on a public platform is not by itself sufficient; the specific statutory requirements must be examined.

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

• Enacted to prevent atrocities against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and provide for Special Courts, relief and rehabilitation of victims, among other safeguards.
• Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) specifically address intentional caste-based insult, intimidation or abuse in circumstances falling within public view.

“Public View” vs “Public Place”

• Public view is not necessarily synonymous with a public place.
• The focus is on whether the alleged act or utterance could be seen or heard by members of the public in the circumstances.
• The digital environment raises a new interpretive question because communication may occur outside a conventional physical public place while remaining accessible to a wider audience.