The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act's Section 3(1)(u) only applies when someone attempts to incite animosity toward SC or ST community members as a whole, according to the Madras High Court, which dismissed a university professor's petition challenging a trial court's refusal to order an investigation into his complaint. The proposed accused in her complaint had claimed that the petitioner had supernatural powers and that she had warned her that the proposed accused and her husband will die in six months.
In the instant case titled Dr R Radhakrishnan v. The The Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) and Anr., the issues raised before the Madras High Court were:
Whether the allegations were made only because the petitioner was from the scheduled caste?
Whether the procedure adopted by the Trial court justified?
With regard to the issue, the court stated that it’s not possible to refer the complaint for investigation by the responding police since the claims in the complaint do not, on the surface, appear to be criminal offences under Section 3 (1)(u) or 3 (1)(zb) of the Act.
It ruled that Dr John's assertions that Radhakrishnan has supernatural abilities and that he "warned" her that her husband will die in six months if she opposes him do not constitute an act of physical hurt or mental anguish on the petitioner "by charges of practising witchcraft."
A person who accuses a member of the SC/ST of practising witchcraft or being a witch may be punished under Section 3(1)(zb). The single bench, however, ruled that there had been no public outcry or public insults of the petitioner. It said, "The complaint regarding the claimed acts of the misdeed is given to the proper authority."
With regard to the second issue, the petitioner's argument was accepted by the court. He pointed out that the petition should have been given a number by the court because the petitioner had submitted an affidavit at the time of the hearing.
The petitioner had also contested the trial court's method of operation. He claimed that the trial judge dismissed the petition without even numbering it and after recording his sworn declaration.
The HC held that if the trial Court had found that there are prima facie cognizable offences, the Trial Court ought to have referred the complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. with an appropriate direction to register the FIR straightaway or to conduct a primary enquiry.
The court categorically stated that:
“A careful reading of Sections 3 (1) (r) and 3 (1) (s) shows that the legislature has carefully used the words that when 'a member' of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe is humiliated with intent, then the offences under Sections 3 (1) (r) and 3(1) (s) come into play. As far as Section 3 (1) (u) the word used is the 'members of Scheduled caste' and on a clear reading of the entire Section 3 (1) (u), it would be clear that when against the members of the Scheduled Caste or Schedule Tribe, as a group if any person is trying to promote ill feeling or enmity, then only the said offence will come to play. Therefore, I am of the view that Section 3 (1) (u) is not made out.”