This article is for educational and legal awareness purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or solicitation. Please consult a qualified advocate for advice on specific legal matters.
Introduction
The Allahabad High Court, in Harshit @ Honey v. State of U.P. and Another [2026 LiveLaw (AB) 100], has clarified that merely referring to a person by their profession does not automatically constitute an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). The Court held that for an offence under the Act to be made out, it must be established that the words were intentionally used with the intent to humiliate the victim on the basis of their caste or tribal identity.
Facts of the Case
The complainant — a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste community — worked as a washerwoman for the appellant. A contractual relationship existed between them, under which she washed clothes for the appellant’s household.
When the complainant demanded her unpaid dues, a dispute arose. She alleged that on a public road, the appellant harassed and abused her, using casteist words and calling her “dhobin” (a term derived from the profession of washing clothes) in a derogatory manner.
An FIR was registered, and the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gautam Budh Nagar, issued a summoning order on 9 August 2024 against the appellant for offences under Sections 3(1)(Da) and 3(1)(Dha) of the SC/ST Act, in addition to Sections 323, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.
The appellant challenged the summoning order before the Allahabad High Court.
Legal Issues
The central question before the Court was:
Whether merely referring to a person by a word associated with their profession (in this case, “dhobin”) is sufficient to constitute an offence under Sections 3(1)(Da) and 3(1)(Dha) of the SC/ST Act, or whether intent to humiliate based on caste identity must also be established?
Relevant Provisions
Section 3(1)(Da) — SC/ST Act
This provision makes it an offence to intentionally insult or intimidate with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.
Section 3(1)(Dha) — SC/ST Act
This provision covers the use of words, acts, or gestures to intentionally promote or attempt to promote feelings of enmity, hatred, or ill-will against members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes.
Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC
- Section 323: Voluntarily causing hurt — punishable with imprisonment up to one year, or fine up to Rs 1,000, or both
- Section 504: Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace — punishable with imprisonment up to two years, or fine, or both
- Section 506: Criminal intimidation — punishable with imprisonment up to two years, or fine, or both
Court’s Analysis
Justice Anil Kumar-X examined the factual matrix and the charge sheet filed under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973.
Contractual Relationship
The Court noted that an acknowledged contractual relationship existed between the parties — the complainant washed clothes for the appellant’s household for payment. In this context, the word “dhobin” was descriptive of the complainant’s actual profession.
Intent Is the Key
The Court held that merely calling a person by a word associated with their profession does not, by itself, attract the provisions of the SC/ST Act. The critical element is intent — whether the words were used with the specific purpose of humiliating the victim on the basis of their belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
The Court observed:
Merely referring to someone by their profession does not attract SC/ST Act offence if no intent to humiliate is established.
Distinction Between Profession and Caste
The Court drew a distinction between using a word that describes a person’s profession and using that word as a casteist slur. Where the word accurately describes an existing professional relationship and there is no evidence of intent to humiliate based on caste, the SC/ST Act provisions are not attracted.
Order
The High Court partially allowed the appeal:
- Quashed the summoning order dated 9 August 2024 insofar as it related to offences under Sections 3(1)(Da) and 3(1)(Dha) of the SC/ST Act
- Permitted the criminal proceedings under Sections 323, 504, and 506 of the IPC to continue in accordance with law
Significance
This judgment clarifies an important aspect of the SC/ST Act — that the Act is not intended to penalise every use of a word that may be associated with a particular caste or community. The intent to humiliate based on caste identity is a necessary ingredient of the offence. Without proof of such intent, a word that merely describes a person’s profession — even if the profession is traditionally associated with a particular community — does not constitute an atrocity under the Act.
This is consistent with the Supreme Court’s observations in Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 6 SCC 454, where the Court cautioned against the misuse of the Act and emphasised the need for a preliminary inquiry before registration of FIRs (though this aspect was subsequently modified by amendment).
Important Points to Remember
- Intent to humiliate based on caste or tribal identity is a necessary element of offences under the SC/ST Act
- Merely referring to a person by their profession — even if the profession is traditionally associated with a particular community — does not by itself constitute an offence under the Act
- The existence of a contractual or professional relationship between the parties is a relevant factual consideration
- Quashing of SC/ST Act charges does not preclude prosecution under general IPC provisions (Sections 323, 504, 506) if those offences are otherwise made out
- Persons aggrieved by false or frivolous invocation of the SC/ST Act may seek quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS)
Useful Resources
- LiveLaw — Harshit @ Honey v. State of UP
- Indian Kanoon — SC/ST Act
- e-Courts Services — Check case status online
Disclaimer: The information provided on this website is for general legal awareness and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, advertisement, or solicitation. No reader should act or refrain from acting based on this information without seeking professional legal counsel. Advocate Akhil Singh and this website are not liable for any actions taken based on the content provided herein.