SC/ST Act: ‘Public View’ Extends To Digital Domain

SC/ST Act And ‘Public View’ In The Digital Age

Source: Indian Express
GS II: Polity & Governance: Social Justice

---

Why in the News?

The Calcutta High Court has held that casteist slurs made on social media can attract provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, observing that the requirement of “public view” can extend beyond physical spaces to the digital domain.

News in Brief

---

• The Calcutta High Court held that the requirement of “public view” under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act can extend to the digital domain.
• The provisions deal with intentionally insulting, intimidating or abusing a member of an SC/ST community by caste name in a place within public view.
• The Court’s interpretation follows earlier judicial decisions emphasising that the offence must satisfy the specific statutory conditions of the Act.
• The Kerala High Court has also observed that laws such as the SC/ST Act must be interpreted in a manner that accommodates technological and social changes.

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

---

• The act seeks to prevent atrocities and caste-based humiliation against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
• Provides for Special Courts/Exclusive Special Courts for specified offences.
• Contains provisions relating to victim and witness rights and protection.
• Provides enhanced legal safeguards against caste-based atrocities.
• It operates alongside constitutional protections such as Articles 15 (prohibition of discrimination on grounds including caste), 17  (Abolition of untouchability) and 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty, including dignity).

Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s)

• These provisions criminalize certain forms of intentional caste-based humiliation, intimidation or abuse.
• For the relevant offences to be established, broadly three conditions areimportant:
  • The accused should not be a member of an SC or ST community.
  • The act should be intended to humiliate or insult the victim on the basis of caste.
  • The alleged act should occur “in any place within public view”.
• For cases involving social media, the interpretation of the third requirement (public view) becomes particularly important.

What does “Public View” mean?

---

• In Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020), the Supreme Court explained that “public view” refers to circumstances where members of the public could witness or hear the alleged utterance.
• The Court held that merely because an incident occurs in a particular physical location, it does not automatically mean that it occurred in “public view”.
• The circumstances in which the alleged offence took place must be examined.
• The Supreme Court reiterated this approach in Ramkrishna Chauhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, where proceedings under the SC/ST Act involved allegations against a school manager.
• The Court emphasised that the requirement depends upon whether members of the public could actually witness or hear the alleged utterance.
• Thus, the mere location of an incident is not sufficient; the circumstances determining public visibility or audibility are relevant.

Calcutta High Court: Public View in the Digital Domain

---

• The case before the Calcutta High Court involved a Scheduled Caste petitioner who alleged that two persons from general caste communities had used casteist expletives against him on Facebook.
• The police subsequently filed a closure report, stating that Facebook had not provided the required user details.
• The complainant challenged the closure report before a special court at Alipore.
• After the special court rejected the petition, the matter reached the Calcutta High Court.
• The High Court set aside the special court’s order, criticized its reasoning and questioned the police investigation.
• On the specific issue of “public view”, the High Court held that the concept “transcends physical space into the digital domain.”
• Therefore, the fact that the alleged casteist abuse occurred through a social-media platform does not, by itself, place it outside the scope of the SC/ST Act.

What have other courts said?

---

Kerala High Court

• In Sooraj V. Sukumar v. State of Kerala (2022), the Kerala High Court observed that courts should not interpret legislation as though society and technology have remained unchanged since the law was enacted.
• The court described the SC/ST Act as an “ongoing statute”, indicating that its interpretation may need to accommodate technological developments.
• A narrowly restrictive interpretation could, according to the Court, undermine the purpose of the legislation.

Public View in the Digital Age

---

• The issue highlights an important legal question- Can an online platform constitute a place within ” public view”?
• The recent judicial approach suggests that the answer depends on the circumstances of the communication, including whether the alleged caste-based insult was accessible to or capable being witnessed by members of the public.

Significance and Challenges

---

• Expands legal understanding- The concept of public view is no longer necessarily restricted to conventional physical spaces.
• Addresses digital platforms- Social media can create public-facing spaces where caste-based abuse may reach a wider audience.
• Protects vulnerable communities- The interpretation seeks to ensure that technological platforms do not become spaces where statutory protections become ineffective.
• Technology and law- It demonstrates the need for courts to interpret existing legislation in the context of technological change.
• Safeguards against overreach- At the same time, courts must examine whether all statutory ingredients of the offence are actually satisfied; not every caste-related remark automatically constitutes an offence under the SC/ST Act.

Challenges

• Determining what constitutes “public view” on different digital platforms.
• Distinguishing private communication from publicly accessible content.
• Establishing the identity of persons behind online accounts.
• Preservation and authentication of digital evidence.
• Balancing protection against caste-based abuse with safeguards against over-criminalization.
• Ensuring that courts examine all statutory requirements rather than treating every caste-related statement as an offence.

Way Forward and Conclusion

---

The way forward lies in developing clear judicial guidelines for applying the “public view” requirement to social-media content, strengthening mechanisms for preserving digital evidence, and ensuring effective investigation of online caste-based abuse. At the same time, authorities must carefully examine all statutory requirements to prevent both under-enforcement and misuse of the law.

The evolving interpretation of the SC/ST Act shows the need to keep legal frameworks responsive to technological and social changes. A balanced approach can ensure that digital platforms do not become spaces for caste-based humiliation while upholding due process, fairness and the constitutional commitment to equality and dignity.

UPSC Prelims and Mains Practice Question

---

Consider the following statements regarding the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989:

1. Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) deal with certain forms of intentional caste-based insult, intimidation or abuse.
2. The requirement of “public view” can only be satisfied when an offence occurs in a physical public place.
3. The Supreme Court has held that every caste-related insult automatically constitutes an offence under the SC/ST Act.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

A) 1 and2 only

B) 2 and 3 only

C) 1 only

D) 1,2 and 3

Mains Practice Question

Q) The concept of ‘public view’ under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 needs to evolve with technological changes. Discuss in the context of caste-based abuse on social media. (250 words)

---

Daily Current Affairs: Click Here

Rate this Article and Leave Feedback