REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. __1287_OF 2008

[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 987 of 2007]

Swaran Singh & Ors. .. Appellant (s)

-versus-

State through Standing Counsel & Anr...Respondent (s)

J U D G M E N T

Markandey Katju, J.

1.Leave granted.

2.This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment &

order dated 22.01.2007 passed by the High Court of Delhi in

Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 285-287 of 2006.

3.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4.Appellant No. 1 Swaran Singh is the husband of appellant

No. 2, Smt. Simran Kaur and father of appellant No. 3, Ms. Tarjeet.

They reside on the first floor of the premises M-39, Greater

Kailash-II, New Delhi. The ground floor of the said premises was

occupied by one Shri Umesh Gupta, a businessman.

5.It appears that an FIR at Police Station C.R. Park, New Delhi

was filed against the appellants by one Vinod Nagar. The FIR read

as follows :

“To

SHO

P.S. Chittaranjan Park

New Delhi.

Sub: Complaint against Smt. Simran Kaur and her daughter

resident of M-39, Ist floor, G.K.-II, New Delhi

Sir,

I, Vinod Nagar S/o Sh. Ram Singh Nagar R/o A-113,

Dakshin Puri, New Delhi and work with Sh. Umesh Gupta at

M-39, Ground Floor G.K.-II as driver since last one year. I

belong to Khatik Caste. I usually stand near the Car which is

2

parked at the gate. Smt. Simran Kaur and her daughter (whose

name I do not know but I can identify her) whenever cross near

by since last 15-20 days speak that I am a chuda-chamar and

whenever they come I should not come in the way. It hurts my

emotion and when I tried to tell this to her husband Sh. Sarwan

Singh he also said that you are actually a chuda-chamar and

hence they are not saying anything wrong. When I told

happening to my employer Sh. Umesh Gupta and he talked to

Sardar Sarwan Singh and on this Sarwan Singh misbehaved

and said that he will not let we people stay there. I also came

to know that Sarwan Singh has filed a Court case against my

employer Sh. Umesh Gupta. I did not complain earlier because

this man may stop saying these words to me. About today on

10.122004 around 8.45 a.m. in the morning when I came to

duties to the house of Sh. Umesh Gupta Ji, I took the keys and

started cleaning the vehicle. At that time both mother and

daughter threw dirty water on me and said that chuda-chamar

why did you come and Simran Kaur said that at this time when

her daughter goes to office therefore by putting this water on

me they were making me to take bath. I have become tense

due to this act of their and I feel that I should quit this job but I

belong to a poor family and job is my compulsion. Even

finding another job is not so easy. When the water was thrown

on me at that time guard Albis and Dhan Singh driver were also

present. It is therefore requested that you should take an

appropriate action against the above-mentioned persons. I

shall be thankful to you.

Thanks

Vinod Nagar

s/o Sh. Ram Singh R/o A-113

Dakshin Puri

New Delhi”.

6.On the basis of the said FIR investigation was done and a

charge-sheet dated 14.6.2005 was filed against the appellants under

3

section 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes and The Schedules Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the

Act).

7.Thereafter, by the order dated 14.3.2006 charges were framed

against the appellants. Against the order of framing charges

Criminal Revision Petitions Nos. 285-287 of 2006 were filed in the

Delhi High Court which were dismissed by the impugned

judgment. Hence, this appeal by Special Leave.

8.It may be noted that the trial has still to be held and the

appellants will have an opportunity of establishing their innocence

in the trial. At this stage all that the High Court can see in the

petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or in a writ petition, is whether

on a perusal of the FIR, treating the allegations to be correct, a

criminal offence is prima facie made out or not or whether there is

any statutory bar vide Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India

Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC 736 (vide para 12), State of Orissa vs. Saroj

4

Kumar Sahoo (2005) 13 SCC 540 (vide paras 9 and 10), etc. At

this stage the correctness or otherwise of the allegations in the FIR

has not to be seen by the High Court, and that will be seen at the

trial. It has to be seen whether on a perusal of the FIR a prima

facie offence is made out or not.

9.A perusal of the FIR shows that the first informant Vinod

Nagar belongs to the Scheduled Caste. He has alleged in the FIR

that appellant Nos. 2 & 3 Swaran Singh and her daughter Ms.

Tarjeet told him whenever they come near him for the last 15 to 20

days that he is a Chuda-Chamar and he should not come in their

way. When Vinod Nagar complained about this to appellant No. 1

Swaran Singht, he also said that Vinod Nagar actually is a Chuda-

Chamar and that appellant Nos 2 and 3 did not say anything

wrong.

5

10.It is also alleged in the FIR that Smt. Simran Kaur and her

dauther Ms. Tarjeet threw dirty water on the first informant and

said ‘Chuda-Chamar why did you come…’.

11.The question which arises for consideration in this case is

whether prima facie an offence has been committed under section 3

(1)(x) of the Act. Section 3(1)(x) states :

“(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or

a Scheduled Tribe, --

(x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to

humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled

Tribe in any place within public view;

Shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which

shall not be less than six months but which may extend

to five years and with fine.”

12.The question in this case is whether calling a person

‘Chamar’ amounts to intentionally insulting with intent to

humiliate a member of the Scheduled Caste.

6

13.It is true that Chamar is the name of a caste among Hindus

who were traditionally persons who made leather goods by

handicraft [vide the People of India by Watson Kaye, the Tribes &

Castes of the North-Western Provinces and Oudh by W.Crooke,

The Chamars of Uttar Pradesh by A.B Mukerji, The Chamar

Artisans by Satish Kumar Sharma, The Tribes and Castes of the

North-Western India by W. Crooke etc.]. The word `chamar’ is

derived from the Hindi word `peM+k’ which means leather.

14.Before the coming of the British into India, the Chamars

were a stable socio-economic group who were engaged in

manufacturing leather goods by handicraft. As is well-known,

feudal society was characterized by the feudal occupational

division of labour in society. In other words, every vocation or

occupation in India became a caste e.g. Dhobi (washerman),

Badhai (carpenter), Lohar (blacksmith), Kumbhar (potter) etc. The

same was the position in other countries also during feudal times.

Thus, even now many Britishers have the surname Baker, Butcher,

7

Taylor, Smith, Carpenter, Gardener, Mason, Turner, etc. which

shows that their ancestors belonged to these professions.

15.It is estimated that before the coming of the British into India

about 40% of the population of India was engaged in industry

while the rest of the population was engaged in agriculture. This

industry was no doubt handicraft industry, and not mill industry.

Nevertheless, there was a very high level production of goods in

India by these handicraft industries before the coming of the

British, and many of these goods were exported often up to

Europe, the Middle East, China, etc. e.g. Dacca Muslin,

Murshidabad silk, and other kind of textiles, etc.

16.A rough and ready test of the level of economic development

of a country is to find out how much percentage of the population

is engaged in industry, and how much in agriculture. The greater

the percentage of population in industry and lesser in agriculture

the more prosperous the country. Thus, the U.S.A., the most

8

prosperous country in the world today has only about 2 or 3% of

its population in agriculture, while the rest is in industry or

services.

17.India was a relatively prosperous country before the coming

of the British because a high percentage of the people (which could

be up to 40%) was engaged at that time in industry (though no

doubt this was handicraft industry, not mill industry). Thus, Lord

Clive around 1757 (when the battle of Plassey was fought)

described Murshidabad (which was then the capital of Bengal) as

a city more prosperous than London, vide `Glimpses of World

History’ by Jawaharlal Nehru (Third Impression p.416, chapter

entitled `The Indian Artisan goes to the wall’).

18.When the British conquered India they introduced the

products of their mill industry into India, and exorbitantly raised

the export duties on the Indian handicraft products. Thereby they

practically destroyed the handicraft industry in India. The result

9

was that by the end of the British rule hardly 10% or even less of

the population of India was still in the handicraft industry, and the

rest of those who were earlier engaged in the handicraft industry

were made unemployed. In this way about 30% of the population

of India who were employed in handicraft industry became

unemployed, and were driven to starvation, destitution, beggary or

crime (the thugs and ‘criminal’ tribes were really these

unemployed sections of society). As an English Governor General

wrote in 1834, `the bones of the cotton weavers are bleaching the

plains of India’.

19.In this connection it may be noted that in the revenue records

in many states in our country one often finds recorded : ‘A son of

B, caste lohar (smith), vocation agriculture’; or ‘C son of D, caste

badhai (carpenter), vocation agriculture’, or ‘E son of H, caste

kumhar (potter), vocation agriculture’, etc. This indicates that the

ancestors of these persons were in those professions, but later they

became unemployed as British mill industry destroyed their

10

handicraft. Some people think that if the British had not come into

India an indigenous mill industry would have developed in India,

and India would have become an Industrial State by the 19

th

Century, like North America or Europe, but it is not necessary to

go into this here.

20.The Chamars also suffered terribly during this period. The

British industries e.g. Bata almost completely destroyed the

vocation of the Chamars, with the result that while they were a

relatively respectable section of society before the coming of

British rule (because they could earn their livelihood through

manufacture of leather goods) subsequently they sank in the social

ladder and went down to the lowest strata in society, because they

lost their livelihood and became unemployed.

21.Today the word ‘Chamar’ is often used by people belonging

to the so-called upper castes or even by OBCs as a word of insult,

abuse and derision. Calling a person ‘Chamar’ today is nowadays

11

an abusive language and is highly offensive. In fact, the word

‘Chamar’ when used today is not normally used to denote a caste

but to intentionally insult and humiliate someone.

22.It may be mentioned that when we interpret section 3(1)(x) of

the Act we have to see the purpose for which the Act was enacted.

It was obviously made to prevent indignities, humiliation and

harassment to the members of SC/ST community, as is evident

from the Statement of Objects & Reasons of the Act. Hence,

while interpreting section 3(1)(x) of the Act, we have to take into

account the popular meaning of the word ‘Chamar’ which it has

acquired by usage, and not the etymological meaning. If we go by

the etymological meaning, we may frustrate the very object of the

Act, and hence that would not be a correct manner of

interpretation.

23.This is the age of democracy and equality. No people or

community should be today insulted or looked down upon, and

12

nobody’s feelings should be hurt. This is also the spirit of our

Constitution and is part of its basic features. Hence, in our

opinion, the so-called upper castes and OBCs should not use the

word ‘Chamar’ when addressing a member of the Scheduled

Caste, even if that person in fact belongs to the ‘Chamar’ caste,

because use of such a word will hurt his feelings. In such a

country like ours with so much diversity – so many religions,

castes, ethnic and lingual groups, etc. – all communities and groups

must be treated with respect, and no one should be looked down

upon as an inferior. That is the only way we can keep our country

united.

24.In our opinion, calling a member of the Scheduled Caste

‘Chamar’ with intent to insult or humiliate him in a place within

public view is certainly an offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Act.

Whether there was intent to insult or humiliate by using the word

‘Chamar’ will of course depend on the context in which it was

used.

13

25.A perusal of the FIR clearly shows that, prima facie, an

offence is made out against the appellants 2 and 3. As already

stated above, at this stage we have not to see whether the

allegations in the FIR are correct or not. We have only to see

whether treating the FIR allegations as correct an offence is made

out or not. In our opinion, treating the allegations in the FIR to be

correct an offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Act is prima facie

made out against appellants 2 and 3 because it prima facie seems

that the intent of the appellants was to insult or humiliate the first

informant, and this was done within the public view.

26.Of course, it will be open to the appellants 2 and 3 to put up

their defence at the trial, and the trial court may or may not accept

the correctness of the allegations in the FIR. However, at this

stage we cannot quash the FIR against them and the trial must

proceed.

14

27.Learned counsel then contended that the alleged act was not

committed in a public place and hence does not come within the

purview of section 3(1)(x) of the Act. In this connection it may be

noted that the aforesaid provision does not use the expression

‘public place’, but instead the expression used is ‘in any place

within public view’. In our opinion there is a clear distinction

between the two expressions.

28.It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first

informant, was insulted by appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a

‘Chamar’) when he stood near the car which was parked at the

gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place

within public view, since the gate of a house is certainly a place

within public view. It could have been a different matter had the

alleged offence been committed inside a building, and also was not

in the public view. However, if the offence is committed outside

the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be

seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall,

15

the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. Also,

even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of

the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it

would be an offence since it is in the public view. We must,

therefore, not confuse the expression ‘place within public view’

with the expression ‘public place’. A place can be a private place

but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public place

would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by the

Government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon

sabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons

or private bodies.

29.Our Constitution provides for equality which includes special

help and care for the oppressed and weaker sections of society who

have been historically down trodden. The SC/ST communities in

our opinion are also equal citizens of the country, and are entitled

to a life of dignity in view of Article 21 of the Constitution as

interpreted by this Court. In the age of democracy no people and

16

no community should be treated as being inferior. However, the

truth is that in many parts of our country persons belonging to

SC/ST are oppressed, humiliated and insulted. This is a disgrace to

our country.

30.In this connection it may be mentioned that in America to use

the word ‘Nigger’ today for an African-American is regarded as

highly offensive and is totally unacceptable, even if it was

acceptable 50 years ago. In our opinion, even if the word

‘Chamar’ was not regarded offensive at one time in our country,

today it is certainly a highly offensive word when used in a

derogatory sense to insult and humiliate a person. Hence, it should

never be used with that intent. The use of the word ‘Chamar’ will

certainly attract section 3(1)(x) of the Act, if from the context it

appears that it was used in a derogatory sense to insult or humiliate

a member of the SC/ST.

17

31.The caste system is a curse on our nation and the sooner it is

destroyed the better. In fact it is dividing our country at a time

when we must all be united as Indians if we wish to face the

gigantic problems confronting us e.g. poverty, unemployment,

price rise, corruption, etc. The Scheduled Castes and The

Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is a salutary

legislative measure in that direction.

32.Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that so far as

appellant No. 1, Swaran Singh is concerned, his case even treating

the allegations in the FIR to be correct, does not attract section 3(1)

(x) of the Act. Learned counsel submitted that in the FIR it is

mentioned that when the first informant Vinod Nagar complained

to appellant No.1, Swaran Singh that his wife and daughter were

insulting him by calling him ‘Chuda-Chamar’, Swaran Singh said

that actually he (Vinod Nagar) is a ‘Chuda-Chamar’ and hence

they did not say anything wrong.

18

33.We have already stated above that in today’s context even

calling a person ‘Chamar’ ordinarily amounts to intentionally

insulting that person with intent to humiliate him. It is evident

from a perusal of the FIR that appellant No. 1, Swaran Singh

joined his wife and daughter in insulting Vinod Nagar, and he also

used the word ‘Chamar’ in a derogatory sense.

34.However, a perusal of the F.I.R. shows that Swaran Singh did

not use these offensive words in the public view. There is nothing

in the F.I.R. to show that any member of the public was present

when Swaran Singh uttered these words, or that the place where he

uttered them was a place which ordinarily could be seen by the

public. Hence in our opinion no prima facie offence is made out

against appellant no.1.

35.The High Court in the impugned judgment has observed (in

paragraph 16) that the question whether the appellants indeed

uttered the offending words with intention to humiliate the

19

complainant, are matters of evidence. We fully agree with this

view. Hence, we find no merit in the appeals of appellants 2 and

3, and they are accordingly dismissed. However, the appeal of

appellant No.1 is allowed, and the proceedings against him are

quashed. There will be no order as to costs.

……………………….J.

(Altamas Kabir)

……………………….J.

(Markandey Katju)

New Delhi;

August 18, 2008

20