A special court in Mumbai has acquitted four school staff members—comprising a principal, a supervisor, and two teachers—who were accused under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The court determined that the prosecution failed to establish both the complainant’s caste and the requisite malicious intent behind the alleged actions, which are essential elements for conviction under the Act.

The allegations, dating back to 2010–2013, involved claims of caste-based harassment, including derogatory remarks such as, “You got your job because of your reservation… You are not fit for teaching job. It is better to go for sweeping.” However, the court noted that these comments, even if made, occurred within the confines of the school’s office and not in public view—a necessary condition for certain offenses under the Act. Additionally, two of the three key witnesses turned hostile, and there was no concrete evidence presented to verify the complainant’s caste. The court also highlighted procedural lapses, including an unauthorized initial investigation and a significant delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR). Given these factors, the court concluded that the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof, leading to the acquittal of all four accused, who had been out on bail.

This case underscores the judiciary’s emphasis on strict adherence to legal standards when prosecuting offenses under the SC/ST Act. In similar rulings, courts have clarified that for an offense to be established under the Act, there must be clear evidence of intentional caste-based humiliation occurring in public view. For instance, the Supreme Court has held that mere insults or intimidations to a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe do not amount to an offense under the Act unless such actions are specifically intended to humiliate the victim based on their caste identity.

These decisions highlight the importance of substantiating claims with concrete evidence and the necessity of proving both the victim’s caste status and the accused’s intent to discriminate based on that status.

Sources