Is caste-based abuse in a private home no longer a crime? The CPI(M) raises serious questions
New Delhi – In a judgment on May 11, the Supreme Court held that if caste-based abuse or insult occurs within a private residence and is not in “public view,” no offense is made out under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. A division bench of Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra overturned the Delhi High Court order in Gunjan @ Girija Kumari v. State of Delhi (NCT) and quashed the FIR and charge sheet filed against the accused.
The dispute arose from a family property dispute in the Kirti Nagar police station area of Delhi. The complainant and the accused are relatives. On January 28, 2021, the complainant, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste, alleged that the accused, Girija Kumari, addressed him with derogatory casteist slurs such as “Chuda,” “Chamar,” and “Harijan,” and that the other accused issued threats. FIR number 42/2021 was registered at the Kirti Nagar police station. The trial court framed charges under sections of the SC/ST Act, and the Delhi High Court upheld that decision, leading to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Argument: “Public View” Essential Condition
The Supreme Court clarified that offenses under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act are made out only when the insult or casteist slur is uttered “in any place within public view.” The Court noted that the incident took place in a residential house in Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi, and the FIR did not state that any independent member of the public was present at the time or that the incident occurred in public view. Both points 5(b) and 6(e) of the FIR mentioned the same residential address.
The court, citing its earlier judgments—Swaran Singh v. State (2008), Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020), and Karuppudayar v. State (2025), held that “public view” means that the incident occurred in a place where the public could see or hear it. An incident occurring within a boundary wall, where the public had no access, did not satisfy this condition.
The court also dismissed charges under Sections 506 (criminal intimidation) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, stating that the contents of the complaint did not establish either “intent to alarm” or “common criminal intent.”
According to legal experts, this judgment reaffirms two key principles: first, the necessity of the “public view” condition under sections of the SC/ST Act; And second, the requirement that all legal elements must be clearly stated in the FIR and accompanying charge sheet before prosecution can begin. However, actual incidents of caste-based humiliation committed in public places are still fully punishable.
This Supreme Court decision has caused deep unease among Dalit and Bahujan organizations. They argue that caste-based oppression often occurs within the confines of homes, where there are no outside witnesses. Therefore, making the “public view” requirement mandatory practically closes the doors to justice for victims. Social justice advocates argue that caste-based humiliation occurring within the confines of a home is no less painful.
Ambedkarite activist Ravi Parmar says, “If tomorrow some Manuwadi forcibly kidnaps a Dalit person, takes him to his private home, and insults him with caste-based slurs, it will not be considered a crime under the SC/ST Act. It’s amazing. As long as the collegium system exists, attacks on the rights of Dalits and tribals are certain to continue.”
Bahujan thinker Ravi Ratna says, “The atrocities in Khairlanji happened in public. The victim and her daughter were raped, paraded naked, brutally abused, and killed. The victim’s son and another youth were killed in broad daylight. But the court ruled that the murders were committed out of revenge and were not caste-related, so no SC/ST Act was applied.”
Anti-caste activist Dr. Rehna Ravindran says, “Read it this way: If the murder happened in a private home, there’s no fault. If the rape happened in a private home, there’s no fault. If the husband beats his wife in a private home, there’s no fault. So, do you understand the absurdity behind these statements? Prejudiced casteists will go to any lengths to weaken the legal protections afforded to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.”
This isn’t the first time a Supreme Court decision on the SC/ST Act has sparked political and social opposition. In 2018, the court’s weakening of arrest provisions under the same Act sparked nationwide protests, a Bharat Bandh, and the deaths of several protesters, after which Parliament intervened to restore the original provisions through amendments. The CPI(M) had also called the decision “retrograde” and demanded an immediate review petition from the central government. The 2026 judgment is now being viewed by critics as part of a continuing judicial trend of diluting the Act’s safeguards.
CPI(M) Politburo Expresses Deep Concern Over Judgment
The Politburo of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) has expressed deep concern over the judgment delivered by the two-judge bench of the Supreme Court. The party said that in the case of Girija Kumari and others v. State of Delhi, the Supreme Court adopted a narrow approach based solely on legal technicalities and ordered the quashing of the FIR and chargesheet, which is extremely unfortunate. The Politburo said that this judgment is worrying for several reasons: firstly, it comes at a time when incidents of atrocities against SC and ST communities are rapidly increasing in most parts of the country, and secondly, this judgment is the latest in a long series of Supreme Court judgments that adversely impact the rights of these communities. The party feared that if this decision was not reversed, incidents of abusive treatment of SC/ST persons in homes, offices, schools, colleges, and other places would increase, as perpetrators would assume that the law could do nothing against them. The CPI(M) demanded the immediate intervention of the central government and an appeal to the Supreme Court to reconsider this decision.
Communist Party of India General Secretary and former MP D. Raja criticized the decision, saying, “Such an interpretation risks ignoring the realities of caste oppression in India. Caste discrimination and violence do not occur only in public spaces. Verbal insults, social exclusion, untouchability practices, and even physical violence often occur in homes, workplaces, and other private spaces, influenced by caste hierarchy. A crime does not cease to be a crime simply because it occurred away from public view. This decision appears to ignore the spirit of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, which criminalizes all forms of discrimination arising from untouchability and caste practices. The struggle against caste oppression requires an understanding of how caste power operates in everyday life, including in the private sphere where victims are most vulnerable and isolated. At a time when atrocities against Dalits and Adivasis are on the rise across the country, legal interpretations must strengthen constitutional protections and the struggle for dignity, equality, and social justice.” They should not be narrowed down.”
Geetha Sunil Pillai
Courtesy: Hindi News