Public View’: Why Calcutta HC Said SC/ST Act Covers Online Slurs

The Calcutta High Court has held that casteist slurs made on social media can attract provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

What the Law Says

• Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act criminalise intentional insult, intimidation or abuse by caste name against a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.
• For these offences, three key conditions must be satisfied:
  • The accused should not belong to the SC/ST community.
  • The insult or intimidation must be on the basis of caste.
  • The act must occur within public view.

Meaning of “Public View”

• In Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020), the Supreme Court explained that “public view” refers to a place where members of the public can witness or hear the alleged act.
• An incident occurring inside a private place may fall outside the provision if no members of the public are present.
• In digital cases, the key question is whether the content is accessible to persons beyond a purely private communication.

What the Calcutta High Court Held

• The Court said that “public view” transcends physical space and extends into the digital domain.
• The case involved a Facebook post allegedly containing casteist remarks against a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste.
• The Court held that online content visible to others can satisfy the public-view requirement under the SC/ST Act.
• It therefore refused to treat social media as outside the scope of statutory protection merely because the insult did not occur in a physical public place.

What Other Courts Have Said

• In Sonu v. S. Kumar v. State of Kerala (2022), the Kerala High Court held that the SC/ST Act must be interpreted in light of technological and social changes.
• The Court described the Act as an “ongoing statute”, meaning its provisions should evolve with changing modes of communication.
• A restrictive interpretation could weaken the purpose of the law in the digital age.

Significance

• The ruling expands protection against caste-based abuse from physical spaces to online platforms.
• It recognises that social media can function as a public forum where humiliation and discrimination can occur.
• At the same time, courts must still verify whether all statutory ingredients are satisfied; not every caste-related remark automatically becomes an offence under the Act.

Under the SC/ST Act, “public view” is not confined to physical presence; online casteist abuse may also attract criminal liability if the content is publicly accessible and the other legal conditions are met.