Calcutta High Court has held casteist slurs on social media can attract provisions of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act 1989 observing public view under law not confined to physical spaces.
Single bench Justice Uday Kumar said requirement of public view under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) transcends physical space into digital domain. Ruling comes weeks after Supreme Court reiterated not every caste-related remark amounts to offence and courts must closely examine statutory requirements.
Read more - When Cleaning Becomes Untouchability
Sections criminalise intentionally insulting, intimidating or abusing member of Scheduled Caste or Tribe by caste name in any place within public view. Three elements: accused not SC/ST, act intended to humiliate on basis of caste, incident must occur in place within public view.
Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma vs Uttarakhand 2020 held public view means place where members of public can witness or hear utterance. If offence takes place within four corners of wall where public not present, cannot be said place within public view.
Read more - Cut! Clash! FIR!
Calcutta HC held petitioner, member of Scheduled Caste, complained two men from general caste communities used casteist expletives against him on Facebook. Police filed closure report saying Facebook not provided user details. Complainant filed petition against closure in special court Alipore which rejected it. HC set aside order describing special court's reasons as perverse and pulling up police, saying it transcends physical space into digital domain. Kerala HC in Sooraj V Sukumaran 2022 had similar view - SC/ST Act as ongoing statute must be interpreted to accommodate tech advances.
Tags: #SCSTAct #CalcuttaHC #OnlineSlur #PublicView #CasteAbuse #SocialMedia #KeralaHC #DigitalDomain #AtrocitiesAct #Judicia