The Bombay High Court has clarified that a consensual romantic relationship between individuals of different caste identities, even when terminated due to caste-based refusal to marry, does not automatically constitute an atrocity under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. This ruling redefines the boundaries of criminal liability under Section 3(2)(va), emphasizing that mere refusal to marry on caste grounds, without coercive or degrading conduct, falls outside the statute’s intended scope.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Abhishek S/o Satyanarayan Ailwar, is accused of engaging in a prolonged consensual romantic relationship with a woman from the Gond Scheduled Tribe, who worked as a nurse in Gadchiroli. The relationship began in early 2024, with the appellant expressing love and promising marriage. Over the course of more than a year, physical relations occurred multiple times. In September 2025, the victim became pregnant and was allegedly forced to terminate the pregnancy. Subsequently, the appellant refused to marry her, citing her Scheduled Tribe status. The victim then filed a complaint alleging coercion, threats, and caste-based humiliation.
Procedural History
- 18 February 2024: Appellant proposes relationship to victim, promising marriage
- 16 July 2024: First sexual encounter occurs in appellant’s car on promise of marriage
- September 2025: Victim becomes pregnant; allegedly forced to abort
- Late 2025: Appellant refuses marriage, citing caste
- January 2026: Victim lodges complaint at Aheri Police Station
- Crime No. 58/2026: Registered under Sections 69, 241, 351(2) of BNSS, 2023 and Section 3(2)(va) of SCST Act
- Criminal Application (ABA) No. 27/2026: Appellant’s pre-arrest bail application rejected by Special Court, Aheri
- 12 March 2026: Appeal filed before Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench
Relief Sought
The appellant seeks pre-arrest bail, arguing that the allegations, even if true, do not meet the threshold for an atrocity under Section 3(2)(va) of the SCST Act, as the relationship was consensual and no act of humiliation, degradation, or forced conduct beyond the refusal to marry was established.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 3(2)(va) of the SCST Act applies when a person from a dominant caste refuses to marry a Scheduled Tribe individual after a consensual sexual relationship, without any act of physical violence, public humiliation, or social boycott.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel relied on State of Maharashtra v. Suresh and Rajendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh to argue that Section 3(2)(va) requires a deliberate act of humiliation or degradation rooted in caste prejudice. Mere refusal to marry, even if motivated by caste bias, does not constitute an atrocity unless accompanied by overt acts of social or physical subjugation. The relationship was voluntary, and the victim’s pregnancy and subsequent abortion were not proven to be coerced beyond her own testimony. The counsel emphasized that the SCST Act must not be stretched to cover private, consensual relationships gone sour.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that the refusal to marry on caste grounds, coupled with the forced abortion and threats of defamation, amounted to psychological and social degradation under Section 3(2)(va). The prosecution argued that the appellant’s conduct was part of a broader pattern of caste-based control over tribal women, and that the SCST Act must be interpreted liberally to protect vulnerable communities from insidious forms of discrimination.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous textual and contextual analysis of Section 3(2)(va), which criminalizes "intentionally insulting or intimidating a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe with intent to humiliate him or her in any place within public view." The Court noted that the provision requires both a caste-based motive and an act of public humiliation or degradation.
"The mere refusal to marry a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe, even if motivated by caste prejudice, does not constitute an act of humiliation or intimidation within the meaning of Section 3(2)(va) unless it is accompanied by conduct that publicly degrades or insults the victim in a manner that reinforces caste hierarchy."
The Court distinguished this case from precedents where victims were paraded naked, denied entry to temples, or subjected to public caste slurs. Here, the alleged conduct occurred in private, within the context of a consensual relationship. The Court further observed that the victim’s prior engagement to another person undermined the claim of coercion, and that the abortion allegation lacked corroborative medical evidence.
The Court also emphasized that the SCST Act is not a tool to adjudicate broken relationships or breach of promise cases. To do so would dilute its purpose and invite misuse. The Court held that the absence of any public or degrading act rendered the charge under Section 3(2)(va) unsustainable at the prima facie stage.
The Verdict
The appellant won. The Court held that Section 3(2)(va) of the SCST Act does not apply to consensual relationships terminated due to caste-based refusal to marry, absent any act of public humiliation, degradation, or coercion. The Court granted pre-arrest bail on conditions, quashing the atrocity charge as legally untenable.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Caste-Based Refusal to Marry Is Not Automatically an Atrocity
- Practitioners must now distinguish between private social prejudice and criminal acts of humiliation under the SCST Act
- Merely alleging caste-based refusal to marry will not sustain a charge under Section 3(2)(va)
- Prosecutors must plead and prove specific acts of public degradation or intimidation
Consent Is a Critical Factor in Atrocity Cases
- Where sexual relations are consensual, even if followed by refusal to marry, the atrocity charge is unlikely to hold
- Courts will scrutinize whether the victim’s consent was vitiated by coercion or undue influence
- Medical and corroborative evidence becomes essential to substantiate claims of forced abortion or threats
Pre-Arrest Bail Standards Are Clarified
- Courts may grant pre-arrest bail where the prima facie case under SCST Act is weak
- The burden shifts to the prosecution to demonstrate conduct that meets the statutory threshold
- Lawyers should file detailed bail applications highlighting absence of public humiliation or caste-based degradation
