Calling someone Adivasi not an offence, says J'khand HC

Ranchi: Merely calling a tribal an "Adivasi" will not constitute an offence under the Schedule Castes And Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, a judgement passed by the Jharkhand High Court passed earlier this month has held.

Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary, while hearing a criminal writ filed by one Sunil Kumar has held that to constitute an offence punishable under the SC/ST (POA) Act, the victim ought to be a member of a schedule caste or a schedule tribe.

The word "Adivasi" is not a tribe as per the schedule provided in the Constitution, and unless the victim comes under the list of the schedule tribes noted in the Constitution, no case under the Act can be made out against accused, the court has observed.

The court was hearing the petition of Sunil Kumar, a public servant who had challenged a FIR registered against him with the Dumka police station by a woman. The victim who lodged the FIR happens to be a member of the schedule tribe.

The victim has mentioned in the FIR that she had gone to meet Kumar in his office to serve an application under the Right to Information Act. Kumar allegedly refused to accept the application and is said to have called the victim an "insane Adivasi". It is further alleged that Kumar pushed the victim out of his office and humiliated her.

Kumar's counsel Chandana Kumari argued that the victim has not mentioned her specific caste or tribe that she belongs to and has only mentioned the word "Adivasi" as her identity. "So, calling her an insane Adivasi by my client is not an offence," Kumari argued.

She also stated that the FIR has been registered under the SC/ST Act. There is no enactment under the law mentioned as SC/ST Act, rather it is AC/ST POA Act and in that view of the matter, also the prosecution case is bad in law, Kumari argued.

The court observed in its order passed on April 8 that continuation of the criminal proceeding against Kumar, who is undisputedly a public servant and the alleged occurrence took place when he was discharging his duty as such public servant, will amount to abuse of process of law. The court quashed the FIR and set aside the proceedings arising out of the case.