A School Campus Is Not Automatically ‘Public View’: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Charges Against School Manager

Case at a Glance

The Supreme Court has quashed charges under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against a school manager, holding that the essential requirement that the abuse be ‘within public view’ was not shown where the incident took place in an enclosed room. It said “The mere fact that the occurrence took place within the premises of a school does not, by itself, satisfy this requirement.” The IPC charges will continue.

After a quarrel between students on 24 January 2020, the father of two pupils lodged an FIR the next day against the appellant, the school's Manager, and others, alleging assault and caste-based abuse. The charges included IPC offences and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. The appellant's wife lodged a counter-FIR on the same day alleging that the complainant assaulted her in the school office.

The Special Judge took cognizance and summoned the appellant in August 2022. The Allahabad High Court dismissed his appeal under Section 14A(1) of the SC/ST Act on 10 April 2023, holding that a counterblast FIR was no ground to quash and that a prima facie case existed.

The Key Question Before the Court

Does an alleged caste-based abuse inside a closed room of a school satisfy the ‘within public view’ requirement of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s)?

The ‘Public View’ Test at the Cognizance Stage

The Court relied on Karuppudayar v. State, (2025) 01 SC CK 1610, which followed Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 11 SC CK 0013: the place must be such that members of the public can witness or hear the utterance, and an incident “within the four corners of the wall where members of the public are not present” does not qualify. The FIR did not say the abuses were uttered in public presence, and the site plan placed the incident in an enclosed room.

Neither the FIR nor the complainant's statement attributed specific caste-based words to the appellant. Four teacher witnesses spoke only of a quarrel and scuffle; none said they were inside the room or heard caste abuse. Their mere presence in the school did not prove public view. While detailed appreciation of evidence is not required at cognizance, the basic ingredients must appear from the material, and they did not.

What the Court Actually Held

• The appeal was allowed and the High Court judgment dated 10 April 2023 was set aside.
• Proceedings under FIR No. 37 of 2020 against the appellant under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act were quashed.
• The proceedings continue for the remaining IPC offences.
• Presence in school premises alone does not satisfy ‘public view’.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It applies the Hitesh Verma line of cases to a school setting.
• It stresses that basic ingredients must appear even at cognizance.
• It separates the SC/ST charges from the IPC charges, which survive.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For the Accused

• Use the site plan and witness statements to test whether the place was within public view.
• Check whether specific caste-based words are attributed to the accused.

For Complainants and Prosecutors

• Record who was present and could hear the words, and where exactly the incident occurred.
• Remember that general allegations of caste abuse may not suffice.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

No. Only the SC/ST Act charges were quashed; the IPC offences continue.

The Court held that occurrence within school premises does not by itself satisfy ‘public view’.

Karuppudayar v. State and Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand.

Conclusion

Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →