Bombay High Court Affirms Discharge of Accused in Atrocities Act Case: “Criticism of Reservation System Does Not Constitute Promotion of Hatred Without Clear Evidence”

Court’s Decision:
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench dismissed the appeal filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the order passed by the Special Judge. The Special Judge had discharged the accused persons in relation to a case registered under Sections 3(1)(u) and 3(1)(v) of the Atrocities Act. The High Court upheld the lower court’s decision, stating that there was no prima facie case against the accused to proceed under the Atrocities Act.

Facts:
The complainant, in this case, claimed to have been involved in a love affair with accused No.1, a woman who later reportedly withdrew from the relationship upon learning that the complainant belonged to the Chambhar community (a Scheduled Caste). The complainant alleged that after this revelation, accused No.1 began exchanging WhatsApp messages with him in which she expressed negative views about the caste-based reservation system. These messages were allegedly offensive and derogatory towards the Scheduled Castes, promoting enmity and hatred.

The complainant further alleged that the accused, by sending these messages, humiliated him and insulted members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes. Based on these allegations, the police registered a crime against the accused under Sections 3(1)(u) and 3(1)(v) of the Atrocities Act. Following the investigation, the accused filed an application for discharge, which was opposed by both the State and the complainant. The Special Judge, however, discharged the accused, citing that the allegations did not make out a case under the Atrocities Act.

Issues:

1. Whether the messages exchanged by the accused constituted sufficient evidence to support a charge under Section 3(1)(u) of the Atrocities Act, which criminalizes promoting enmity or hatred against Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes.
2. Whether the Special Judge erred in discharging the accused, considering the allegations made by the complainant and the evidence presented.

Petitioner’s Arguments:
The complainant argued that the WhatsApp messages exchanged by accused No.1 clearly showed an attempt to create hostility and ill-will against the Scheduled Caste community. The complainant contended that these messages, expressing views on the caste-based reservation system, demonstrated a deliberate attempt to humiliate the complainant and his community, thus warranting a charge under the Atrocities Act.

Respondent’s Arguments:
The defense counsel for the accused argued that the complainant’s personal grudge against accused No.1 motivated the filing of the complaint. They pointed out that there was a significant delay of five months in lodging the report, which raised doubts about the credibility of the claim. The defense further contended that the WhatsApp messages, while expressing views on the reservation system, did not contain offensive language or explicit attempts to promote enmity or hatred against the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. The defense asserted that the messages were sent to the complainant individually and were not public or intended to cause social division.

Analysis of the Law:
Section 3(1)(u) of the Atrocities Act criminalizes the use of words (whether spoken, written, or through signs or visible representations) that promote or attempt to promote feelings of enmity, hatred, or ill-will against members of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. The court analyzed the messages and determined that while they expressed views critical of the caste reservation system, they did not meet the threshold required by the law to constitute a criminal act under Section 3(1)(u).

The court also referred to legal principles surrounding the stage of framing charges and the discharge of accused persons. At this stage, the court must assess whether there is sufficient material to proceed with the case, without delving into a detailed examination of evidence. The court found that the evidence presented by the complainant did not, on its face value, establish the necessary ingredients for an offence under the Atrocities Act.

Precedent Analysis:
The court referred to precedents that guide the judicial approach at the discharge stage. In State by Karnataka Lokayukta vs. M.R.Hiremath and State of Tamil Nadu vs. N.Suresh Rajan, the Supreme Court held that when considering a discharge application, the court must assume that the material brought on record by the prosecution is true. The court must then evaluate whether these materials, taken at face value, disclose the existence of the necessary ingredients to constitute an offence. The court is not required to conduct a mini trial at this stage but must assess whether the prosecution’s material is sufficient to warrant proceeding against the accused.

Court’s Reasoning:
The court examined the WhatsApp messages and found that while the accused’s views on the caste reservation system were critical, they did not include language that would promote hatred or enmity against the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. The court noted that the messages appeared to be directed at the complainant personally, expressing views on the reservation system, rather than attacking the Scheduled Caste community as a whole. Therefore, the court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to proceed under Section 3(1)(u) of the Atrocities Act.

The court emphasized that the Atrocities Act was enacted to protect members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from acts of humiliation and discrimination. However, the court clarified that not every derogatory remark or criticism directed at an individual or a community qualifies as an offence under the Act. There must be clear evidence that the words or actions are intended to promote enmity or hatred against the entire community.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that there was no prima facie case to charge the accused under the Atrocities Act. The court upheld the lower court’s decision to discharge the accused, finding that the materials presented did not constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(u) of the Atrocities Act.

Implications:
This ruling reinforces the need for clear and direct evidence to substantiate allegations of promoting enmity or hatred under the Atrocities Act. The decision highlights the importance of distinguishing between personal opinions or grievances and actions that genuinely incite social division or hostility. It also clarifies the threshold required to proceed under the Atrocities Act, emphasizing that mere expressions of discontent with societal systems like caste reservation do not automatically constitute a criminal act unless they directly promote hatred or ill-will against a protected community.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Upholds Tenant Eviction under Delhi Rent Control Act: “Tenants Exhausted All Procedural Remedies and Cannot Use Article 226 to Revisit Conclusively Settled Jurisdictional Issues”