‘Public view’: Why HC said SC/ST Act covers online slurs, Pg12

Key Highlights:

• The Calcutta High Court has ruled that casteist slurs made on social media can attract provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
• The court stated that the requirement of "public view" under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act extends beyond physical spaces to include the digital domain.
• This interpretation aims to ensure the law keeps pace with technological advancements and protects Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe individuals from online abuse.

Detailed Insights:

• Justice Uday Kumar's single bench emphasized that "public view" transcends physical presence into the digital realm for the purpose of the Act.
• This ruling addresses the challenge of applying laws designed for physical interactions to the rapidly evolving online environment.
• The decision contrasts with some Supreme Court interpretations, such as in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020), which focused on physical presence for "public view".
• The Kerala High Court in Sooraj V. Sukumar v. State of Kerala (2022) had previously adopted a similar stance, advocating for the Act's interpretation to accommodate technological changes.
• The Calcutta HC set aside a lower court's closure report in a case involving casteist expletives on Facebook, highlighting the need for thorough investigation into online complaints.

Key Concepts Involved:

• SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: A special legislation enacted to prevent atrocities against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and provide for their protection and rehabilitation.
• Public View: A legal criterion referring to a place or medium where members of the public can witness or hear an alleged act or utterance.
• Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act: These sections criminalize intentionally insulting, intimidating, or abusing a member of an SC/ST community by caste name in a place within public view.