'Adivasi Not A Caste': Jharkhand High Court Quashes SC/ST Act FIR Against Govt Officer Accused Of Calling Woman 'Insane Adivasi'

The Jharkhand High Court quashed an FIR against a public servant for assaulting and using caste-based abuse against a woman, stating that a person cannot be treated as an SC/ST member unless their caste/tribe is specifically included in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order or the relevant Presidential notifications.

Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary in his order held that in the absence of any material to show the informant belonged to a notified Scheduled Tribe or Scheduled Caste, no offence under Sections 3(1)(r) or 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act 1989 could be made out. It said:

“The conjoint reading of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 along with Clauses 24 and 25 of the Article 366 of the Constitution of India as well as Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India, goes to show that unless the name of the caste or tribe finds place in the public notification made by The President of India, specifying the tribes or tribal community or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal community or castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races or tribes; such person cannot be treated as a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe; as has been referred to in the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 or in other words unless the name of castes, races or tribes or tribal community or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal community finds place in the public notification, such person cannot be treated as Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes for the purpose of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.”

The Court in its judgement noted that the only allegation against the petitioner was that he had used the word that the lady is an "insane Adivasi". 

It further said:

“Now coming to Annexure-9 of this writ petition which is a document of unimpeachable character, being the copy of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 in part XXII goes to show that the caste Adivasi does not find place in the said public notification. There is no allegation in the FIR that the informant belongs to any of the castes mentioned in part XXII which is applicable to the State of Jharkhand in the said Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. It is not the case of the informant that she is a member of scheduled castes. Under such circumstances, this Court finds force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, even if the entire allegation made against the petitioner are considered to be true in its entirety, still, neither the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (r) nor the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (s) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out". 

The Court further said that even if the entire allegation made in the FIR was considered to be true in its entirety, still, the informant had not disclosed anywhere that she belongs to any of the castes, tribes or tribal community as mentioned in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 as is applicable in Jharkhand and undisputedly, the place of occurrence is in Dumka which comes under Jharkhand.

Observing that even if the allegation is considered to be true, none of the offences mentioned under the SC/ST Act were made out in absence of any material in the record to suggest that the informant is either a person belonging to scheduled caste or a person belonging to scheduled tribe.

Background

The court was hearing a plea for quashing an FIR registered for the offences under IPC for wrongful restraint, criminal intimidation and assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 alleging that the petitioner while posted as settlement officer was approached by the informant-a lady with an RTI application. He allegedly became enraged when she approached him and called her an “insane Adivasi,” used obscene language, and pushed her out of his chamber, thereby humiliating her in front of others.

Section 3(1) (r) of SC/ST Act punishes someone who intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a  SC/ST member in any place within public view. Section 3 (1)(s) punishes someone who abuses any SC/ST member by caste name in any place within public view. 

Findings

The Court found force in the contention of the petitioner that there was no statute named as 'SC/ST Act, 2016' as mentioned in the formal FIR as well as in the endorsement of registration of the SC/ST Case and it said that the registration of the FIR was bad in law.

The Court noted that the only allegation against the petitioner was that he pushed the lady out from his chamber being annoyed by her conduct intending to submit an RTI application.

It said that there was no allegation against the petitioner that he assaulted or used criminal force on the lady intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that it will outrage her modesty.

In the absence of essential ingredients regarding the intent of the petitioner to outrage the modesty of the informant or the petitioner knowing that his act would outrage the modesty of the informant, the Court held that even if the entire allegations against the petitioner were considered to be true in its entirety, still, the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC were not made out.

Further the Court noted that there was absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of obstructing the informant or preventing the informant from proceeding in the direction she has a right to proceed. Thus, the Court opined, that even if the entire allegation made in the FIR were considered to be true against the petitioner in its entirety, still, the offence punishable under Section 341 IPC was not made out. So far as the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC are concerned, they are all non-cognizable offences, the Court said and hence, for the limited purpose of the writ petition, the Court refused to delve at length regarding the same.

It concluded, “...this Court has no hesitation in holding that continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner, who is undisputedly a public servant and the occurrence took place when he was discharging his duty as such public servant, will amount to abuse of process of law”

Quashing the FIR, the court allowed the petition.

Case Title: Sunil Kumar v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 37

Click Here To Read Judgement