Enclosed School Room Not “Public View”; Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Charges Against School Manager
A Division Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta quashes SC/ST Act charges, holding caste-based abuse inside an enclosed room fails the “public view” requirement.
The Supreme Court on 20 August 2026 quashed charges under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against a school manager from Uttar Pradesh, holding that an alleged caste-based altercation inside an enclosed room with no windows or public access cannot constitute an offence committed “in any place within public view.” The Court found that neither the FIR nor witness statements disclosed a specific caste-based utterance attributable to the appellant, and that the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer placed the occurrence squarely inside an enclosed school office. The appeal, arising from an SLP after the Allahabad High Court declined to interfere with the summoning order, was allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment. Proceedings for the remaining IPC offences, however, were directed to continue.
How the Dispute Reached the Supreme Court
On 25 January 2020, Respondent No. 2 lodged FIR No. 37 of 2020 at a police station in Uttar Pradesh against Ramkrishna Chauhan and other co-accused persons. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 147, 323, 342 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
The prosecution's case was that on 24 January 2020, one of the sons of Respondent No. 2 suffered injuries in a quarrel with other students at Krishna Public School, where Chauhan served as Manager. When Respondent No. 2 came to the school to address the matter, it was alleged that Chauhan, along with school staff, abused and assaulted him with lathis, sticks and fists, and further directed caste-based abuses at him.
A chargesheet was filed on 17 March 2020. By an order dated 8 August 2022, the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, took cognizance and registered the matter as Sessions Case No. 642 of 2022.
Chauhan challenged the summoning order by filing Criminal Appeal No. 930 of 2023 under Section 14A(1) of the SC/ST Act before the Allahabad High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeal on 10 April 2023, holding that a prima facie case was made out and that the fact of the case being lodged as a counterblast to another FIR was not, by itself, ground to quash the chargesheet or summoning order. Chauhan then approached the Supreme Court, which granted leave.
It is relevant that, on the same day, Chauhan's wife also lodged FIR No. 39 of 2020 against Respondent No. 2 under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC, alleging that Respondent No. 2 had abused and assaulted her in the school office, following which Chauhan intervened and was himself assaulted. A chargesheet in that matter was filed on 27 April 2020 and cognizance was taken by the Magistrate on 3 December 2020.
The Central Question: Was the Incident Within "Public View"?
Before the Supreme Court, senior counsel Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, appearing for Chauhan, pressed two points. First, that the High Court erred in holding that the alleged incident took place within public view, when the site plan dated 25 February 2020, prepared by the Investigating Officer, identified the place of occurrence as room “A” — an enclosed room with no window or public access. Second, that neither the FIR nor the statement of Respondent No. 2 attributed any specific caste-based words or slurs to the appellant.
Counsel for the appellant also argued that Chauhan had no prior acquaintance with Respondent No. 2 and that there was no material to show he knew the complainant's caste or intended to humiliate him on that ground. The State supported the High Court's judgment, arguing that the incident occurred within public view and that the material on record was sufficient to establish a prima facie case at the cognizance stage.
The "Public View" Requirement Under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s)
The Court set out the text of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. Both provisions penalise caste-based insult, intimidation or abuse committed against a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe “in any place within public view,” with imprisonment of not less than six months and extending up to five years, along with fine.
The Court then referred to its recent decision in Karuppudayar v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi, Trichy & 3 Others (2025 INSC 132), which had relied on Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020) 10 SCC 710. From that line of authority, the Court reaffirmed that to be a place “within public view,” the place must be open so that members of the public can witness or hear the utterance. If the alleged offence takes place within the four walls of a room where members of the public are not present, it cannot be said to have occurred at a place within public view.
Why the Prosecution's Case Failed on the Facts
Applying this principle, the Court found that the prosecution case did not satisfy the statutory requirement on either ingredient.
On the question of location, the FIR did not state that the alleged caste-based abuses were uttered in the presence or hearing of members of the public. The site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer placed the occurrence inside room “A,” which the record indicated was enclosed with no window or public access. The mere fact that the occurrence took place within the premises of a school did not, in the Court's view, satisfy the public view requirement.
During investigation, statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded from four private witnesses — Pradeep Kumar, Soorbeer, Sudha and Pooja Chauhan — all teachers at Krishna Public School. Their accounts described an altercation and scuffle in the school office between the parties. None of them stated that they were present inside the office when any caste-based abuses were uttered, or that they heard any such words. Their presence elsewhere in the school premises did not establish that the alleged utterance was made within public view.
On the question of specific allegation, the Court found that neither the FIR nor the statement of Respondent No. 2 attributed any specific caste-based words or slurs to the appellant. The allegation of caste-based abuse remained general and vague. At its highest, the material disclosed a quarrel and scuffle between the parties, not a specific caste-based utterance attributable to Chauhan.
The Cognizance Standard and Its Limits
The Court acknowledged that at the cognizance stage, a court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence. However, it held that the basic ingredients of the offence must still emerge from the material placed before the court. In this case, the essential requirement — that the alleged caste-based insult or intimidation occurred at a place within public view — was not borne out by the material on record. The High Court's finding to the contrary, the Court said, could not be sustained.
The Court also addressed and rejected the State's submission that the incident occurred within public view. Counsel for the State could not demonstrate anything in the material to establish that the alleged utterance was made in circumstances where members of the public could witness or hear it.
Order
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The judgment and order dated 10 April 2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 930 of 2023 was set aside.
The proceedings arising out of FIR No. 37 of 2020, insofar as they relate to the offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act against the appellant, stand quashed. The summoning order dated 8 August 2022 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, was set aside to the same extent.
The Court directed that proceedings shall continue insofar as they relate to the remaining offences under the IPC. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.