In a significant interpretation of the law, the Calcutta High Court has ruled that caste-based abuses hurled during a telephone conversation do not attract the stringent provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The court's reasoning centered on the absence of the incident occurring in "public view," a key condition under the Act.
The Court's Rationale and the 'Peculiar' Case
Justice Jay Sengupta delivered the order on December 22, 2025, while hearing an anticipatory bail plea filed by one Nurul Aras. Aras was seeking pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, and was charged under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. These sections criminalize intentionally insulting or intimidating an SC/ST member with caste-based abuses with the intent to humiliate them in any place within public view.
Justice Sengupta termed the case "peculiar" and observed that since the alleged abuses were made over a telephone call and not in a publicly visible space, the provisions of the special Act were not prima facie attracted. The court noted that while the SC/ST Act charges were invoked, other offences mentioned in the First Information Report (FIR) were bailable in nature.
Arguments and the Court's Final Order
Advocate Kunal Ganguly, representing Aras, argued that the anticipatory bail application was maintainable because there was no prima facie case under the SC/ST Act. He emphasized that the FIR itself recorded the abuse as happening over the telephone, outside of public view, and that other charges were bailable.
The High Court, however, held that anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act was not maintainable. It disposed of the application but granted substantial relief to the accused. The court gave Aras the liberty to surrender before the concerned court and seek regular bail within four weeks. It further directed that if such a bail plea is filed, it must be considered according to the law. Crucially, the court clarified that the petitioner shall not be arrested during this four-week period.
Contrasting Views from Other High Courts
This judgment presents a specific legal interpretation that contrasts with recent observations from other High Courts on caste-based offences. In a separate case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently refused to quash an FIR in a hate speech case, observing that caste-based hate speech damages the very fabric of the country. Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj stated that such speech "not only wounds individual dignity but also imperils social harmony and the collective conscience of the country."
Conversely, the Telangana High Court had earlier quashed proceedings under the SC/ST Act in another instance, highlighting the necessity of proving the accused's specific intention to humiliate based on caste. In that case, Justice Juvvadi Sridevi found the dispute to be fundamentally private, related to event arrangements and money, and thus not fit for prosecution under the special statute.
The Calcutta High Court's order underscores the judiciary's careful scrutiny of the specific conditions required to invoke the powerful SC/ST Act, particularly the critical element of an act being committed in "public view." It delineates a legal boundary between private communications and public acts of caste-based humiliation.
