"High Court Extends SC/ST Act's 'Public View' Test to Social Media"
Public view
a place or circumstance where members of the public are present and can witness or hear the alleged act.
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
law criminalising specific offences against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, with special courts.
The SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was enacted to give teeth to the constitutional abolition of untouchability under Article 17 and to protect Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from caste-based violence and humiliation that ordinary criminal law had failed to check. The Act created special offences, special courts for speedy trial, and procedural safeguards favouring complainants, recognising that caste-based crimes often go unreported or unpunished under general law.
The original list of offences under Section 3(1) was expanded by the 2015 Amendment Act, which took effect in 2016. This amendment added Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s), which criminalise intentionally insulting, intimidating, or abusing a person by caste name with intent to humiliate, when this happens 'in any place within public view'. The amendment responded to years of case law that had narrowly read the earlier provisions, and it also introduced a presumption of intent to humiliate in many such cases, shifting the evidentiary burden.
A further amendment in 2018 inserted Section 18A, restoring the Act's original rigour after the Supreme Court's judgment in Dr Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v State of Maharashtra had introduced a preliminary inquiry requirement and diluted protection against anticipatory bail. Parliament's amendment nullified those safeguards, and the Supreme Court later upheld this reversal on review. This history shows a recurring pattern: courts narrowing the law's reach, followed by legislative or judicial correction to preserve its protective purpose.
To convict someone under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s), three elements must be proved. First, the accused must not belong to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Second, the act must be intended to humiliate the victim specifically on the basis of caste. Third, the incident must occur in a place 'within public view'. Most litigation, including the present case, turns on this third element.
The leading precedent is Swaran Singh v State (2008), which first distinguished a 'public place' (a place open to the public, like a park) from 'public view' (a place where members of the public are actually present to witness the act, even if the place itself is private). …
Consider the following statements regarding the requirement of 'public view' under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989:
1.It requires that members of the public be actually present and able to witness or hear the alleged act.
2.An act occurring within the four walls of a private space, with no member of the public present, can still satisfy this requirement.
3.Mere occurrence on institutional premises like a school automatically satisfies this requirement.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Match the following cases with their holdings on the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989:
Case List:
1.Hitesh Verma v State of Uttarakhand
2.Ramkrishna Chauhan v State of Uttar Pradesh
3.Sooraj V. Sukumar v State of Kerala
4.Swaran Singh v State
Holding List:
A.Called the Act an 'ongoing statute' requiring interpretation for technological change
B.First distinguished 'public place' from 'public view'
C.Defined 'public view' as requiring the public's actual presence to witness or hear the act
D.Held institutional premises alone do not satisfy 'public view'
Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which criminalise caste-based insult 'in public view', were inserted by which amendment?
Which of the following is/are among the three statutory elements required to establish an offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, 1989?
1.The accused must not belong to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
2.The act must be intended to humiliate the victim on the basis of caste.
3.The victim must have suffered physical injury.
Select the correct answer using the code below:
Section 18A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, inserted by a subsequent amendment, primarily did which of the following?
Want the full note, Prelims Facts & MCQ answers?
Create a free account — takes less than a minute.
Create free account