In a significant interpretation of Section 194(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS), the Madras High Court has held that caste-based abuse committed over phone - without being in a public place - does not attract the stringent provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The judgment underscores the necessity of public visibility for offences under the Act, while directing the trial court to consider bail applications promptly upon surrender.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, employees of Ujjivan Small Finance Bank, were implicated in a case registered under Section 194(1) of the BNSS following the suicide of Santhosh, a loan defaulter. Santhosh had availed a two-wheeler loan from the bank and defaulted on repayments. On 29.01.2026, he voluntarily surrendered the vehicle to bank officials after failing to repay the overdue Equated Monthly Instalments (EMIs).
Subsequently, Santhosh contacted the bank to negotiate repayment terms, but the bank insisted on full clearance of the loan. On 16.02.2026, bank officials visited his residence again, but Santhosh was unable to arrange a guarantor. Shortly after, he committed suicide. The de facto complainant, Santhosh’s mother, lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioners had abused her son using his caste name over phone, leading to his suicide.
Procedural History
- 17.02.2026: Crime No. 76 of 2026 registered under Section 194(1) BNSS against the petitioners.
- Filing of Crl.O.P. No. 5062 of 2026: Petitioners sought directions for the trial court to consider their bail application on the same day of surrender.
- 05.03.2026: Madras High Court disposed of the petition with directions to the trial court.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought a direction to the Principal District and Sessions Judge (Special Judge), SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Salem, to consider their bail application promptly upon surrender, citing the lack of public visibility in the alleged abuse.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the court was whether caste-based abuse committed over phone, without being in a public place, falls within the ambit of Section 194(1) of the BNSS and attracts the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
The petitioners contended that the alleged abuse occurred over phone and was not committed in a public place, a critical requirement under the SC/ST Act. They relied on precedents emphasizing that offences under the Act must involve public humiliation or atrocities committed in view of others to attract its stringent provisions. They further argued that the suicide of the complainant’s son was unrelated to their actions, as the vehicle was surrendered voluntarily.
For the Respondents
The respondents, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, argued that the caste-based abuse, regardless of the medium, was sufficient to invoke Section 194(1) BNSS. They contended that the SC/ST Act is designed to protect victims from any form of caste-based humiliation, and the public visibility requirement should not dilute its protective scope.
The Court's Analysis
The Madras High Court examined the scope of Section 194(1) BNSS and its interplay with the SC/ST Act. The court observed that the SC/ST Act is intended to prevent atrocities committed in public view, where the victim is subjected to humiliation or abuse in the presence of others. The judgment emphasized that the public visibility of the offence is a critical ingredient for attracting the Act’s provisions.
"In this case, the abuse is said to have been over phone and not in a public place. Therefore, the stringent provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 may not be attracted."
The court further noted that the suicide of the complainant’s son appeared to be a consequence of his financial distress rather than the alleged abuse. It held that the projection of the petitioners’ actions as caste-based atrocities was not substantiated by the facts on record, particularly the lack of public visibility.
The Verdict
The Madras High Court disposed of the petition with the following directions:
- The Principal District and Sessions Judge (Special Judge), SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Salem, is directed to consider the petitioners’ bail application preferably on the same day of their surrender.
- The trial court must afford due opportunity to the victims under Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act before passing orders.
- The petitioners are required to surrender before the jurisdictional court within fifteen days of receiving a copy of the order.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Public Visibility Is Mandatory for SC/ST Act Offences
The judgment reaffirms that offences under the SC/ST Act require public visibility of the alleged atrocity. Practitioners must now:
- Scrutinize the factual matrix to determine whether the abuse occurred in a public place.
- Argue the lack of public visibility as a ground for bail or dismissal in cases where the abuse was committed privately, such as over phone or within a confined space.
Bail Consideration Under SC/ST Act
The court’s direction to consider bail applications on the same day of surrender sets a precedent for expedited hearings in cases where the SC/ST Act’s stringent provisions may not apply. Practitioners should:
- Highlight the absence of public visibility to seek bail at the earliest stage.
- Emphasize the lack of direct evidence linking the alleged abuse to the victim’s suicide or distress.
Burden of Proof in Caste-Based Abuse Cases
The judgment underscores the burden of proof required to establish an offence under the SC/ST Act. Key takeaways include:
- Documentary or witness evidence proving public visibility is critical.
- Oral allegations alone, without corroboration, may not suffice to attract the Act’s provisions.
- Financial disputes or personal grievances must be distinguished from caste-based atrocities to avoid misuse of the Act.
The judgment serves as a cautionary note for prosecutors and complainants to ensure that allegations under the SC/ST Act are supported by clear evidence of public humiliation rather than private disputes.
