The Calcutta High Court has stated in an order that all kinds of professional disagreements, administrative disputes or instances of facing workplace humiliation cannot automatically attract offences under the SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, unless there is clear caste-based insult or abuse in public view.
The HC quashed proceedings against a Sanskrit professor under the SC ST Act, saying that though the complainant belongs to the SC community, the incident of altercation and insult cannot be called a caste-based atrocity and does not come under Section 3 (1)(r) of the Act.
As per reports, Justice Chaitali Chatterjee allowed the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC but set aside the charges under SC -ST Act in case number 10/21 from the Amherst Street Police Station.
The professor is a PhD in Sanskrit and had served as Head of the Department of Sanskrit at Sanskrit College & University. She was accused by an assistant professor of the same university, who belongs to the SC community, of professional jealousy and harassment. The complainant had alleged that the accused had excluded him from departmental decisions, stopped his classes, obstructed him from performing his departmental duties and insulted him during an online meeting using objectionable language. He had alleged that the HOD’s behaviour was motivated by his caste identity.
During the hearing, the Court observed that the allegations were related to professional and administrative grievances within a department and none of the incidents of alleged disagreement or ‘humiliation’ suffered by the complainant can be attributed to the caste identities of the accused or the complainant.
Relying on Supreme Court rulings in previous cases like Gorige Pentaiah, Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, and Swaran Singh v. State, the Bench reiterated that the offence under Section 3(1)(r) requires that 1. The accused is not a member of the SC/ST community 2. There is intentional insult or intimidation. 3. There was an intent to humiliate on account of caste. 4. The caste-based insult occurred in public view.
The court added that mere knowledge of the victim’s caste, or general workplace disputes, is insufficient to invoke the 1989 law.
