Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Alok Aradhe quashes prosecution, clarifying that mere abusive language without caste-based intent does not attract Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
New Delhi, January 19, 2026: The Supreme Court of India has held that insulting or abusive language against a person who belongs to a Scheduled Caste (SC) or Scheduled Tribe (ST) alone is insufficient to constitute an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, unless the insult is made with the specific intent to humiliate the victim on account of their caste identity.
Court & Bench
A two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Alok Aradhe, delivered the judgment on January 19, 2026.
Case Title and Background
The appeal was filed by Keshaw Mahto (also known as Keshaw Kumar Mahto) against the State of Bihar, challenging the continuation of criminal proceedings initiated against him under the SC/ST Act. The charges stemmed from an FIR alleging that the appellant and others abused and threatened a man belonging to a Scheduled Caste at an anganwadi centre. Mahto was charged under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
The Patna High Court, on February 15, 2025, had refused to quash the proceedings, upholding the trial court’s summoning order. The Supreme Court, however, revisited the legal foundation for invoking the special statutory provisions.
Legal Issue
The principal question before the top court was whether insulting, abusing, or threatening an SC/ST individual automatically amounts to an offence under the SC/ST Act, or whether caste-based intent to humiliate must be established as an essential element of the offence.
Final Ruling
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned High Court order, and quashed the criminal prosecution against the appellant under the SC/ST Act. The court held that the FIR and the charge sheet did not contain specific allegations that insults or intimidation were committed on account of the victim’s caste or with the intention to humiliate him based on caste identity.
Reasoning of the Court
The bench analysed the relevant provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, particularly Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s), which criminalise:
- Intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of an SC or ST in public view; and
- Abuse of a member of an SC/ST by caste name in any place within public view.
The court emphasised that:
- Mere abusive language or insult, even if directed at a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe, does not automatically constitute an offence unless it is shown to be motivated by caste identity with the intent to humiliate.
- Both the FIR and chargesheet were vague and failed to attribute any specific caste-based insult or intimidation to the appellant.
- There was no clear evidence that the alleged insult occurred because the complainant belonged to an SC/ST community, which is a crucial ingredient to attract the special law.
Relying on statutory language and prior jurisprudence emphasising the need for intent to humiliate on caste grounds, the court underscored that membership of the SC/ST community alone is insufficient to invoke the Act if there is no causal link between the insult and the victim’s caste.
Practical Implications
- Clarification of Scope: The judgment clarifies that the SC/ST Act applies only when insult or intimidation is specifically tied to caste and intended to humiliate on that basis.
- Evidentiary Threshold: Law enforcement and prosecutors must ensure that complaints under the Act include clear allegations of caste-based humiliation or discrimination, not just abusive conduct.
- Judicial Scrutiny: Trial courts and high courts are expected to scrutinise preliminary allegations to ascertain whether they disclose the essential ingredients of the special statute, particularly caste-linked intent.
- Potential Impact on Cases: The ruling may lead to quashing of proceedings in cases where abuse is alleged but caste-based motivation is not distinctly pleaded or supported by the record.
The judgment adds clarity on the essential requirement of demonstrating that an insult or abusive conduct against a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe member is motivated by caste identity with an intent to humiliate, to attract liability under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Suggested tags: Supreme Court, SC/ST Act, Caste Discrimination, Section 3(1)(r), Article 142, Criminal Law, Judicial Interpretation.
