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  19th

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