Analysis of Section 3 of SC/ST Act

Punishments for Offences of Atrocities: A Comprehensive Analysis of Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

Introduction

The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter "SC/ST Act" or "the Act") stands as a pivotal piece of legislation in India, enacted to prevent the commission of offences of atrocities against members of the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), to provide for Special Courts for the trial of such offences, and for the relief and rehabilitation of the victims of such offences.1 Central to this legislative framework is Section 3, which enumerates various acts that constitute "offences of atrocities" when committed by individuals not belonging to SC/ST communities against those who do. As defined in Section 2(1)(a) of the Act, an "atrocity" means an offence punishable under Section 3.1 This article seeks to provide a comprehensive analysis of Section 3, drawing upon judicial pronouncements and legal principles of India to elucidate its scope, interpretation, and application.

Historical and Legislative Context

The SC/ST Act, 1989, was not conceived in a vacuum. Its genesis lies in the persistent social disabilities and atrocities faced by SCs and STs, despite constitutional guarantees and earlier legislative measures. Article 17 of the Constitution of India abolishes "Untouchability" and forbids its practice in any form.2 Prior to the 1989 Act, the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (formerly the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955) was in place to prescribe punishment for the preaching and practice of untouchability.2 However, the then-existing legal framework was found inadequate to address the gamut of atrocities and discrimination faced by these communities. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the 1989 Act explicitly acknowledges this inadequacy and the continuing perpetration of indignities and offences against SCs and STs.

The Act is one of the legislative measures intended to do justice to members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the most oppressed section of society, by affirmative action.3 It aims to enable them to live with dignity, self-esteem, and without fear or suppression from dominant castes.3 The Directive Principles of State Policy, which are fundamental in the governance of the country, embody the aim of establishing a welfare state and achieving socio-economic justice,4 providing a philosophical underpinning for such protective legislation.

The Architecture of Section 3: Defining Atrocities

Essential Ingredients

Section 3 of the SC/ST Act is a substantive penal clause that creates various offences of atrocities and prescribes punishments.5 A fundamental prerequisite for an offence to fall under Section 3(1) is that the perpetrator must be a person "not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe."1, 5 Conversely, the victim must be "a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe."1, 5 Thus, for the provisions of Section 3 to be attracted, the offence must be committed by a non-SC/ST person against an SC/ST person.5 Some judicial interpretations have underscored that the absence of an averment in the First Information Report (FIR) or complaint that the accused is not a member of an SC/ST can be a ground for quashing proceedings.6, 7

The effect of Section 3 is that certain acts, when committed by non-SC/ST individuals against SC/ST individuals, become offences or more serious offences attracting severe punishments, which might not constitute an offence or might attract lesser punishment under common law (e.g., the Indian Penal Code, 1860).8

Scope of Prohibited Acts

Section 3(1) enumerates a wide range of acts that are deemed atrocities. These include, inter alia:

  • Forcing a member of an SC/ST to drink or eat any inedible or obnoxious substance.1
  • Acts intended to cause injury, insult, or annoyance by dumping excreta, waste matter, etc., in their premises or neighbourhood.1
  • Forcibly removing clothes, parading naked, or any similar act derogatory to human dignity.1
  • Wrongful occupation or cultivation of land owned by or allotted to an SC/ST member, or wrongful dispossession from land, premises, or water.1
  • Compelling or enticing an SC/ST member to do "begar" or other similar forms of forced or bonded labour.1
  • Forcing or intimidating an SC/ST member regarding voting.1
  • Instituting false, malicious, or vexatious legal proceedings.1
  • Giving false or frivolous information to a public servant, causing them to use lawful power to injure or annoy an SC/ST member.1
  • Intentionally insulting or intimidating with intent to humiliate an SC/ST member in any place within public view (formerly Section 3(1)(x), with similar provisions in subsequent amendments like Section 3(1)(r)).1
  • Assaulting or using force on an SC/ST woman with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty (Section 3(1)(xi)).1, 9
  • Sexually exploiting an SC/ST woman by a person in a position to dominate her will.1
  • Corrupting or fouling water sources ordinarily used by SCs/STs.1
  • Denying customary right of passage to a place of public resort.1
  • Forcing or causing an SC/ST member to leave their house, village, or place of residence.1
The punishment prescribed for these offences under Section 3(1) is imprisonment for a term not less than six months but which may extend to five years, and with fine.1 These offences are designed to denigrate members of SCs and STs, prevent them from leading a life of dignity and self-respect, and are often committed to humiliate and subjugate them.10

Judicial Interpretation of Key Offences under Section 3(1)

Intentional Insult and Humiliation in Public View (e.g., old Section 3(1)(x), current Section 3(1)(r)/(s))

One of the most frequently invoked provisions under Section 3(1) pertains to intentional insults or intimidation intended to humiliate an SC/ST member in a place within public view. The Supreme Court in Swaran Singh And Others v. State Through Standing Counsel And Another11 clarified several aspects of this offence (then Section 3(1)(x)). The Court noted that the mere use of the name of a caste (e.g., "Chamar") might not be an offence, but if it is used with the intent to insult or humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste, it would constitute an offence. The intent to humiliate is paramount.11 Furthermore, the Court distinguished between "a place within public view" and a "public place," holding that an offence can occur in a place within public view even if it is not a public place per se.11 This interpretation was reiterated in Arumugam Servai v. State Of Tamil Nadu, where the use of derogatory terms like "Pallan" with intent to insult was held to be an offence under Section 3(1)(x).12

However, in Hitesh Verma v. State Of Uttarakhand And Another,13 the Supreme Court quashed a charge-sheet under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act (a provision analogous to the former Section 3(1)(x)), finding that the alleged abuses occurred within the four walls of a building, not in "public view," and that the dispute was primarily a property dispute without a clear caste-based intent to humiliate. The Court emphasized that all insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of the victim belonging to SC/ST and is also intentional.13 If the basic ingredients of the offence are missing, such as the act not occurring in public view or lack of intentional insult based on caste, proceedings may be quashed.7, 13

The "On the Ground of Caste" Requirement

For certain offences under the SC/ST Act, particularly those linked to offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as specified in Section 3(2), a critical ingredient is that the offence must have been committed against a person or property "on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member."14, 15 In Dinesh Alias Buddha v. State Of Rajasthan,16 the Supreme Court set aside a conviction under Section 3(2)(v) because there was no evidence to establish that the offence (rape) was committed on the ground of the victim's SC/ST status. The Court held that the victim's caste identity alone is insufficient; the offence itself must be motivated by that status.16 This principle was reiterated in MOHINI BISWAS v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR, concerning Section 3(1)(xi) and Section 3(2)(v), emphasizing that the offence must be committed upon a person belonging to SC/ST *with the intention that it was being done on the ground of caste*.9 The absence of such ingredients means no offence under these provisions arises.9, 16 This requirement ensures that the Act's stringent provisions are invoked only when the atrocity is indeed caste-motivated.

Section 3(2): Aggravated Offences and Enhanced Punishments

Section 3(2) of the SC/ST Act provides for enhanced punishments for certain offences. Notably, Section 3(2)(v) stipulates that whoever, not being an SC/ST member, commits any offence under the IPC punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against an SC/ST person or their property, on the ground that such person is an SC/ST member or such property belongs to them, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine.14 Cases like Asharfi v. State Of Uttar Pradesh17 illustrate convictions under this provision. The essential elements are: (i) the offender is non-SC/ST; (ii) the offence is under the IPC, punishable with 10+ years; (iii) it is committed against an SC/ST person/property; and (iv) it is committed *on the ground of* their SC/ST status.14

Similarly, Section 3(2)(va), inserted by amendment, provides for enhanced punishment if a person, not being SC/ST, commits an offence specified in the Schedule (which includes offences under acts like the POCSO Act) against an SC/ST person/property on the ground of their caste.18

Procedural Safeguards, Judicial Scrutiny, and Enforcement

The Bar on Anticipatory Bail (Section 18)

Section 18 of the SC/ST Act explicitly ousts the applicability of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which pertains to anticipatory bail, in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under the Act.5, 19 The constitutional validity of Section 18 has been upheld by the Supreme Court in State Of M.P And Another v. Ram Kishna Balothia And Another,20 reasoning that offences under the Act form a distinct class due to their social context and the need to protect vulnerable communities. The denial of anticipatory bail was deemed not violative of Articles 14 or 21 of the Constitution.20 The Court in Vilas Pandurang Pawar And Another v. State Of Maharashtra And Others19 reiterated that if a complaint alleges offences under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act, Section 18 acts as a bar to anticipatory bail unless it is prima facie evident that no such offence has occurred.

Prima Facie Case and Quashing of Proceedings

While Section 18 bars anticipatory bail, courts are required to perform a prima facie analysis of the allegations. If the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for the applicability of the provisions of the SC/ST Act, the bar under Section 18 may not apply.19, 21 In Dr Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State Of Maharashtra And Another,22 the Supreme Court had initially issued directions for preliminary inquiry before FIR registration and prior sanction for arrest, partly due to concerns about misuse. However, these directions were later recalled in Union Of India v. State Of Maharashtra And Others,23 and the legislative position, including the insertion of Section 18A (which negates the requirement for preliminary inquiry), was affirmed in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union Of India And Others.24

Nevertheless, the power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings if the FIR or complaint, taken at face value, does not disclose the ingredients of an offence under the SC/ST Act, or if the allegations are patently false or malicious, remains intact.13, 24 As seen in cases like Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P. (cited in Imam Baksh7, Narendra Pratap Singh25, and KALPANABEN6), if essential ingredients of Section 3 offences are missing from the complaint, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. Similarly, if the investigation is conducted by an officer not competent under the rules of the Act, the part of the investigation relating to Section 3 offences may be invalidated.25

Challenges in Enforcement

Despite the stringent provisions of the Act, including those in Section 3, challenges in its effective enforcement persist. In National Campaign On Dalit Human Rights And Others v. Union Of India And Others,26 the Supreme Court noted that abundant material proved that authorities were often guilty of not enforcing the Act's provisions, and the travails of SC/ST members continued. The Court directed Central and State Governments to strictly enforce the Act and for National Commissions to discharge their duties to protect SCs and STs.26

Conclusion

Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is the cornerstone of this protective legislation, meticulously defining a wide array of acts as "offences of atrocities." It reflects a legislative commitment to combat caste-based discrimination and violence, ensuring that members of SC and ST communities can live with dignity and security. The judiciary, through its interpretations, has sought to balance the Act's protective intent with safeguards against its potential misuse, emphasizing the need for a prima facie case, specific intent where required (such as humiliation or acts "on the ground of caste"), and adherence to procedural fairness. While the Act provides a robust legal framework, its efficacy ultimately depends on diligent enforcement by authorities and a societal commitment to eradicate caste-based prejudices, thereby realizing the constitutional goal of equality and justice for all citizens of India.

Footnotes

  1. Manju Devi v. Onkarjit Singh Ahluwalia Alias Omkarjeet Singh And Others (Supreme Court Of India, 2017) (Reference Material 11).
  2. Jai Singh & Another v. Union Of India & Others (Rajasthan High Court, 1993) (Reference Material 16).
  3. Ram Krishna Balothia v. Union Of India And Others (Madhya Pradesh High Court, 1994) (Reference Material 19).
  4. G. Krishnan v. Union Of India (Madras High Court, 2005) (Reference Material 15).
  5. Smt. Saroj Kumari v. State Of Haryana (Punjab & Haryana High Court, 2001) (Reference Material 13).
  6. KALPANABEN GOVINDBHAI BHAVSAR v. STATE OF GUJARAT (Gujarat High Court, 2018) (Reference Material 28), citing Gorige Pentaiah V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others - 2008 (12) SCC 531.
  7. Imam Baksh v. Lakhan Singh (Uttarakhand High Court, 2010) (Reference Material 25), citing Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2009) 1 SCC (Cri.) 446.
  8. Munir Khan & Ors. v. State Of Rajasthan (Rajasthan High Court, 1991) (Reference Material 10).
  9. MOHINI BISWAS v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR (Calcutta High Court, 2025) (Reference Material 17).
  10. Satki Devi (Smt.) & Anr. v. Tikam Singh & Ors. (Rajasthan High Court, 2006) (Reference Material 14).
  11. Swaran Singh And Others v. State Through Standing Counsel And Another (2008 SCC 8 435, Supreme Court Of India, 2008) (Reference Material 7).
  12. Arumugam Servai v. State Of Tamil Nadu (2011 SCC 6 405, Supreme Court Of India, 2011) (Reference Material 3).
  13. Hitesh Verma v. State Of Uttarakhand And Another (2021 SCC CRI 1 1, Supreme Court Of India, 2020) (Reference Material 9).
  14. Patan Jamal Vali v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh (Supreme Court Of India, 2021) (Reference Material 12).
  15. Section 3(2)(v) as quoted in various reference materials.
  16. Dinesh Alias Buddha v. State Of Rajasthan (2006 SCC 3 771, Supreme Court Of India, 2006) (Reference Material 6).
  17. Asharfi v. State Of Uttar Pradesh (2017 SCC ONLINE SC 1432, Supreme Court Of India, 2017) (Reference Material 21).
  18. SOMASHEKAR v. THE STATE BY (2023 KHC 37164, Karnataka High Court, 2023) (Reference Material 23), referring to Section 3(2)(va).
  19. Vilas Pandurang Pawar And Another v. State Of Maharashtra And Others (2012 SCC 8 795, Supreme Court Of India, 2012) (Reference Materials 1 & 22).
  20. State Of M.P And Another v. Ram Kishna Balothia And Another (1995 SCC CRI 439, Supreme Court Of India, 1995) (Reference Material 5).
  21. Bachu Das v. State Of Bihar And Others (2014 SCC 3 471, Supreme Court Of India, 2014) (Reference Material 24).
  22. Dr Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State Of Maharashtra And Another (2018 SCC 6 454, Supreme Court Of India, 2018) (Reference Material 4).
  23. Union Of India v. State Of Maharashtra And Others (2019 SCC ONLINE SC 1279, Supreme Court Of India, 2019) (Reference Material 8).
  24. Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union Of India And Others (2020 SCC 4 727, Supreme Court Of India, 2020) (Reference Material 2).
  25. Narendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court, 2014) (Reference Materials 26 & 27).
  26. National Campaign On Dalit Human Rights And Others v. Union Of India And Others (Supreme Court Of India, 2016) (Reference Material 18).