Use Of Terms "Bhangi," "Neech," "Bhikhari," & "Mangani" Not Caste-Based: Rajasthan HC Drops Charges Under SC-ST Act In Public Servant Abuse Case
The Rajasthan High Court ruled that the use of derogatory terms like "Bhangi," "Neech," "Bhikhari," and "Mangani"—which translate to terms such as "beggar," "lowly person," and similar insults—does not constitute caste-based slurs, and therefore, cannot lead to charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act).
This ruling came in the case where four men (the petitioners) were accused of using such offensive terms against public servants during an encroachment inspection.
As a result, criminal charges were filed against the petitioners under Sections 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of duty), 332 (hurt to deter public servant), 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as Section 3(1)(X) of the SC/ST Act, which addresses intentional insult or intimidation intended to humiliate members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in public.
While the police initially submitted a negative report, a protest petition led the trial court to frame charges against the petitioners. In response, the petitioners moved the Rajasthan High Court, seeking to quash the charges, particularly those under the SC/ST Act.
A Bench of Justice Birendra Kumar observed that the words used by the petitioners were not caste-specific, and there was no evidence to show that the intent behind the use of these terms was to insult or humiliate the public servants because of their caste. The Court said, "The words used were not caste name nor there is allegation that the petitioners were known to the caste of the public servants, who had gone to remove the encroachments. Moreover, it is crystal clear on bare perusal of allegation that the petitioners were not intending to humiliate the (public servants) for the reason that they were members of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes rather act of the petitioners was in protest against the action of measurements being wrongly done by the public servants,”
Advocate Leela Dhar Khatri appeared for the petitioners, while Public Prosecutor Surendra Bishnoi appeared for the Respondents.
The Court also pointed out that there was no independent witness to confirm that the incident occurred in public view, as the only witnesses were the informant and the officials involved in the case.
The Court ruled that the charges under the SC/ST Act should be dropped, as there was insufficient evidence to support a caste-based offense. However, the Court allowed the remaining charges under Sections 353 and 332 of the IPC to stand, as there appeared to be a prima facie case that the petitioners had obstructed the officials in the discharge of their duties, justifying the continuation of those charges.
The High Court partially allowed the petition, discharging the petitioners from the SC/ST Act charges but maintaining the criminal charges under the IPC for obstructing public officials.
Cause Title: Achal Singh & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr., [2024:RJ-JD:44266]
