Top News

New Delhi: The Allahabad High Court has ruled that merely addressing a person by their caste, without intent to insult or intimidate, does not amount to an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Hearing a criminal appeal, the court said that in the absence of intent to humiliate, continuing proceedings under the SC/ST Act would amount to misuse of the law. The court, however, allowed proceedings under the Indian Penal Code to continue.

The order was passed by a single-judge bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh while partly allowing an appeal filed by Amay Pandey and three others. The appellants had challenged the trial court’s summons order issued in July 2025 and sought to quash the entire proceedings against them.

According to case records, an FIR was registered in 2019 against the appellants under the SC/ST Act. The defence argued that the case was contradictory and fabricated. It said the original FIR named unidentified persons and referred to a general altercation during a wedding, without any mention of caste-based abuse.

The defence further stated that in a later statement, the complainant introduced allegations of caste abuse and assault, claiming the accused were identified through CCTV footage. It argued that the difference between the FIR and later statements weakened the case. It also said medical evidence showed only minor injuries, suggesting exaggeration.

The appellants contended that there was no proof that the alleged act was committed because the complainant belonged to a Scheduled Caste.

The state opposed the appeal, arguing that based on the chargesheet and summons order, it could not be concluded that no offence under the SC/ST Act was made out.

After hearing both sides, the court noted discrepancies in the prosecution’s version. It observed that the FIR did not mention caste abuse or specify the role of the accused, and the medical report only indicated minor injuries.

The court said these factors, along with indications of a personal dispute, raised doubts about the claims under the SC/ST Act. It held that there was no material to show that the alleged acts were committed due to the complainant’s caste or with intent to humiliate him on that basis.

The court reiterated that for the SC/ST Act to apply, there must be clear evidence that the accused intentionally insulted or intimidated the victim because of caste, and that such an act took place in public view.

It added that verbal abuse or physical altercation without caste-based intent does not fall under the provisions of the SC/ST Act.


(with inputs from NDTV)