Supreme Court has clarified that the mere use of abusive or offensive language against a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe does not, by itself, amount to an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act unless there is a clear and demonstrable intent to humiliate the person on the basis of caste. The ruling sets out a sharper legal threshold for invoking the stringent provisions of the law and underscores the requirement that caste-based intent must be specifically alleged and established.The judgment came while allowing an appeal filed by Keshav Mahato, against whom criminal proceedings had been initiated over an alleged verbal altercation at an Anganwadi centre in Bihar. Mahato had been accused of abusing a man from a Scheduled Caste, leading to the registration of a first information report and the filing of a chargesheet under provisions of the SC/ST Act. Lower courts had permitted the prosecution to proceed.
Setting aside those proceedings, the bench of the Supreme Court of India held that neither the FIR nor the chargesheet contained any allegation that the words used were intended to insult or humiliate the complainant specifically because of his caste. The court observed that while the language attributed to the accused might be inappropriate or abusive, the statutory offence under the special law requires something more than general verbal abuse.
The judges noted that the SC/ST Act was enacted to prevent atrocities rooted in caste discrimination and to provide stringent punishment where such conduct occurs. However, they cautioned that its provisions cannot be applied mechanically in every dispute involving members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. For an offence to be made out, the complaint must disclose that the accused intentionally targeted the victim on the ground of caste, either by explicit reference or by circumstances that unmistakably point to such motive.
In the case before the court, the alleged incident arose from a quarrel at a public welfare facility. The materials placed on record, the bench said, suggested a personal dispute rather than an act motivated by caste-based animus. There was no assertion that the accused referred to the complainant’s caste or that the alleged abuse was designed to publicly humiliate him as a member of a Scheduled Caste. In the absence of such foundational facts, the continuation of criminal proceedings under the Act was held to be an abuse of the legal process.
Legal experts say the ruling reinforces earlier judicial thinking that has sought to balance the protective purpose of the SC/ST Act with safeguards against misuse. Over the years, courts have repeatedly stressed that while the law serves an essential role in combating entrenched discrimination and violence, it must be applied in a manner consistent with its object. The requirement of intentional caste-based humiliation, they argue, is central to distinguishing ordinary disputes from offences that strike at the dignity of historically marginalised communities.
At the same time, the judgment does not dilute the seriousness of genuine cases under the Act. The court was careful to emphasise that where allegations clearly show that abuse or intimidation was rooted in caste prejudice, the law must be enforced with full rigour. The decision, therefore, draws a line between general misconduct, which may attract other penal provisions, and offences that fall squarely within the ambit of the special statute.