Before

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

IN THE MATTERS CONCERNING

(UNDER ART. 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION)

MOOL CHAND………………………………….………………………..…PLAINTIFF

v.

MR. BALDEV…………………..………………………………………....DEFENDANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Index of Authority………………………………………………………………………………..4

Cases Referred ………………………………………………………………………………….5

Statement of Jurisdiction…………………………………………………………………………7

Statement of Facts………………………………………………………………………………..8

Statement of Issues……………………………………………………………………………....9

Summary of Arguments………………………………………………………………………….10

Arguments Advanced…………………………………………………………………………….13

1. ISSUE 1: Whether The Present Case Was Come Within The Ambit Of ‘Public View’ Of
The Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act,
1989?............................................................................................................................12
A. NO INTENTION TO HUMILIATE OR INSULTS
B. Insulting Or Abusing SC-ST Person Within Four Walls Of A House is Not An
Offence Under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act……………………………………….………………….....13
2. ISSUE 2: - Whether The Mr. Baldev Is Punishable Under Section 3(1) (r) and 3(1) (s) of
The Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe (PREVENTION Of Atrocities Act) ssss1989
Or Not For Making Castiest Remarks And Humiliated Mool
Chand?......................................................................................................................19
A. Party affected by the factors, has to avoid the contract….……………………….....20
Prayer…………………………………………………………………………………………….31

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

COMMENTARIES REFERRED

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 2.

1. Majumdar’s, The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes act 1989 (2 ed.)
2.Universal Law House’s, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Act 1989.
3. MP JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (7TH ed. Lexis Nexis 2016).
4. D.D. BASU, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (23rd ed. Lexis Nexis 2018).
5. V.N. SHUKLA, CONSTITUTION OF LAW (13th ed. Eastern Book Company Lucknow 2017).

STATUTES REFERRED

1. THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT,

1989.

WEBSITES REFERRED

1. www.scconline.com
2. www.legalservicesindia.com
3. www.barandbench.com
4. www.outlookindia.com

CASES REFERRED: -
S. NO. CASE NAME CITATION
AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 441

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 3.

1. Swaran Singh vs State

Chandra Poojari vs State of Karnataka (1998) 1 Cr.L.J. 53

2.
V.P.Shetty vs Senior Inspector of Police 2005 CrilJ 3560, 2005 (3) MhLj 1006
3.
K.P.Thakur And Another vs State of U.P. Application U/S 482 No. – 40418 of 2012
4. And Another.
Gorige Pentaiah vs State of Andhra 1311 Of 2008 SC (SLP)
5. Pradesh & others
Bajirao vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay) (Aurangabad Bench)2015(3)
6. Bom.C.R (cri.) 190,
Taxmibai pool vs State of Maharashtra Supra Note 4
7.
Pradeep Kumar vs State of Haryana and CRR NO.1354 of 2019 (O&M)-1-CRR No.1574
8. Another of 2019(O&M)
Pappu Singh vs State of U.P. 2002 Cr.L.j.1251
9.
Alka.A.Misra vs J.P.Shoke 2003 Cr.L.j.1333
10.
Govind Das vs State of Orissa (2000) 1 Ker L.j. (NOC) 43 (SC)
11.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 4.

Mool Chand.v. Mr. Baldev
The plaintiff invokes the jurisdiction of the Honorable Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition
under Article 136 of the Constitution.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 5.

Mool Chand was elected as a ward Member of Ward No.9 of Rajpura town ( A ward Member is
a member of an elected body of a Municipality headed by a chairperson ).Mool Chand belonged
to a Scheduled caste (SC) and the seat to which he was elected was reserved for SC. The body
was chaired by Baldev who belong to General category. Once, Baldev wanted to meet Mool
Chand to discuss issue relating to cleanliness in ward No.9 therefore, on Dec.4,2019 Baldev
sent him a message through whatsapp, inviting him for a personal meeting in his chamber at
11:00 AM. Mool Chand was busy that day and, therefore, he read the message at 11:30AM. He
immediately called Baldev to inform him that he would reach shortly. However, Baldev started
shouting at him for getting late. He made casteist remark and humiliated him. At that time, a
clerk was also sitting in the chamber. Despite the insult and humiliation, Mool Chnad went to the
Municipality to attend the meeting as soon as he entered into the chamber. Baldev got angry and
abused him on the name of his caste. He shouted at him saying: “Get lost from my office,
otherwise I will make you clean the streets”. At that time, there was no third person inside
the chamber. Mool Chand left the chamber as Baldev was not listening to him. He rushed to
the police station to register the FIR against Baldev. At the initial stage of the case, the trial court
found that a prima facie case had been made out against Baldev. Therefore, on Feb.4, 2020 the
court frame charges under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled caste and Scheduled
tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The provision read as below :

Punishments for offences of Atrocities : Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled caste or a
scheduled tribe, -

…..

(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled caste or
a Scheduled tribe in any place within public view ;

(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled caste or a Scheduled tribe by caste name in any place
within public view ;

Accused Baldev challenged the order of framing of charges before the Allahabad high court. The
High Court held that the Casteist aspersions made telephonically or in the absence of a third
person did not constitute an offence within the meaning of section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act,

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 6.

because the alleged remarks were not made “ at a place within public view” as a required under
these provisions. The court also said that the Act is a penal statute which must be strictly
construed. Thus, the High court quashed the order of framing the charges on April 6, 2020.The
court also denied to provide the certificate to appeal before the Supreme court under Article
134A of the constitution of India. Aggrieved by the order of the High court. Mool Chand filed a
Special Leave to Appeal before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution
and the same was admitted for hearing by the court.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 7.

1. WHETHER THE PRESENT CASE WAS COME WITHIN THE AMBIT OF ‘PUBLIC VIEW’ OF
THE SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBE (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT,
1989?

2. WHETHER MR. BALDEV IS PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3(X) OF THE SCHEDULED

CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBE (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989?

SUMMARY OFARGUMENTS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 8.

ISSUE 1:- WHTHER THE PRESENT CASE WAS COME WITHIN THE AMBIT
OF PUBLIC VIEW OF THE SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED
TRIBE (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES)ACT 1989?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of that there is a clear
distinction between the expression ‘public place’ and ‘place within a public view’. And if no
member of the public has either seen the incident or heard the remarks then even if the place is
‘visible to the public view’ it would not attract the ingredients of the offense under section 3(1)
(x) of the act.

And when Mr.Baldev shouted at Mr.Mool Chand no one was present in the office and,no one
heard the remarks and even no one seen to Mr.Bladev during shouting when Mr.Mool chand was
in the office.

ISSUE 2: - WHETHER MR.BALDEV WAS PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3(1)(R)

AND 3(1)(S) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBE (PREVENTION
OF ATROCITIES ACT)1989 OR NOT FOR MAKING CASTIEST REMARKS
AND HUMILIATED MOOL CHAND?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Mr.Baldev is not punishable
under the SC and ST act (Prevention of atrocities act) 1989 because when Mr.Baldev make
castiest remark firstly he used on his telephone, and the telephonic conversation didn’t come
under within the public view and secondly when Mr.Baldev shouted there was no one present in
the office and no one hearing the shouting of Mr.Baldev.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 9.

 ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE PRESENT CASE WAS COME WITHIN THE AMBIT OF ‘PUBLIC VIEW’
OF THE SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBE (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT,
1989?

1. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of that there is a clear distinction
between the expression ‘public place’ and ‘place within a public view’. And if no member
of the public has either seen the incident or heard the remarks then even if the place is
‘visible to the public view’ it would not attract the ingredients of the offense under section
3(1)(x) of the act.
2. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the defendant is not liable under
Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of The Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe (Prevention Of
Atrocities Act), 1989 as section itself speak that the main elements under Section 3(1)(r) is:-
(a) Intentionally insults or intimidate with intent to humiliate,
(b) Place within the public view
3. Here, in the instant case Mr. Baldev has no intention to insult Mool Chand. Also, when he
shouted at Mool Chand no-one is present the office so it is not the place within the public view.
4. Swaran Singh vs State1, the incidents of insult or intimidation have to occur in place accessible
to and in the presence of public. The presence of both the ingredients i.e., intentionally
humiliation or insults and within public view would be absolutely necessary to constitute the
offence.

A. NO INTENTION TO HUMILIATE OR INSULTS

5. Section 3(1)(r) of The Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe (Prevention Of Atrocities Act),
1989 reads as “intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.”2
In this case, although Mr. Baldev shouted at Mool Chand and making castiest remarks on him
but he didn’t have any intention to humiliate Mool Chand because when Mool Chand entered in

1
AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 441
2
The Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Act No. 33 of 1989) SS. 3(1)
(x).

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 10.

 his office, no-one is there in the office except Mr. Baldev and Mool Chand so we can say that
Mr. Baldev have no intention to humiliate Mool Chand.

6. Chandra Poojari vs State of Karnataka3, the alleged incident in this case had been taken place
in the chamber of the complainant, who was working as the commercial tax officer. The
argument raised on behalf of the accused, that the allegations are trye, yet the having taken place
in the chamber of the complainant, it cannot be said that the offence was committed in any place
within the “public view”. So, we can say that in the instant case also the office of Mr. Baldev
will not come within the ambit of “public view”. Hence, not liable under this Act.

7. In V.P. Shetty vs Senior inspector of Police 4, the complaint nowhere discloses that the said
expression was used in public view. In fact, the contents of the fir nowhere disclose that the said
expression was communicated to the complainant either in the place accessible to the public or
in the presence of the public. It is nowhere stated by the complainant that at the time when the
said statement was made by the petitioner no. 2, i.e. on 15th august, 2004 at 9.30 a.m., there was
any stranger to witness the said incident. The provision of section 3(1) (x) of the said act would
He attracted only in case of insulting or intimidating a member of the scheduled caste in any
place within a public view. The expression "in any place within public view" has specific
meaning. It does not mean that every allegation made in a public place that itself would amount
to an offence under the said act. The expression "public view" has been prefixed by the
preposition "within" which in fact follows the expression "in any place". In other words, the
expression relating to the location of the alleged offence is qualified by the requirement of being
"within public view". The act of insult or intimidation must be visible and audible to the public in
order to constitute such act to be an offence under section 3(1) (x) of the said act. In the
provision of law comprised under section 3(1) (x) of the said act, the word "view" refers to that
of 'public' but prefixed by the expression "in any place within-. Being so, the word "public" not
only relates to the location defined by the word "place" but also to the subjects witnessing the
incidence of insult or intimidation to the member of scheduled caste or tribe. Therefore, the
incidence of insult or intimidation has to occur in a place accessible to and in the presence of
the public. The presence of both these ingredients would he absolutely necessary to constitute an
3
(1998) 1 Cr.L.J. 53
4
2005 CrilJ 3560, 2005 (3) MhLj 1006

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 11.

 offence under the said provision of law. The complaint disclosing absence of both or even any
one of those ingredients would not be sufficient to accuse the person of having committed an
offence under section 3(1)(x) of the said act."5
8. In the instant case, both the essential ingredients as provided under V. P. Shetty’s6 Case was
absent. Neither the place is ‘public view, nor he has intention to humiliate Mool Chand so, it
does not come within the ambit of ‘public view’.

B. Insulting Or Abusing SC-ST Person Within Four Walls Of A House is Not An Offence
Under SC-ST Act

9. K.P.Thakur And Another vs State of U.P. And Another  7, that for constituting an offence
under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
the alleged offence should have been committed in public view.  In this case the defendant
shouted at him inside the office and no other person was present there at that time so the
place is not a ‘public view’ within the ambit of Section 3(1)(r) of this Act.
10. In Gorige Pentaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Others 8, Apex Court has propounded at
para 6 that a public view is the view, which is of public access. Once it is inside any house,
it will not be a public view and in the case of lack of above basic ingredient, the offences of
Section 3(1) (x) of the Act is not completed. The same has been propounded by Apex Court
while interpreting public view in same case at para 28. In the instant case, Mr. Baldev
shouted at him within the four walls of the house. So, it will not wall within the ambit of
Section 3(1)(r) because inside the four walls is not a ‘public view.’
11. Bajirao vs State of Maharashtra9, it was held that for proof of the offence punishable under
section 3(1) (x) of the act it is necessary to prove third ingredient of the offence viz. the act
was committed at a place "within public view."
12. V.P. Shetty vs Senior inspector of Police 10in which the case reported as Bat Taxmibai pool
vs State of Maharashtra11 was referred. The learned single judge then observed that to
5
https://www.barandbench.com (last visited on 09/11/20).
6
Supra note 4
7
Application U/S 482 No. – 40418 of 2012
8
1311 Of 2008 SC (SLP)
9
(Bombay) (Aurangabad Bench)2015(3) Bom.C.R (cri.) 190,
10
Supra Note 4
11
https://www.legalserviceindia.com (last visited on Nov 10,2020).

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 12.

 attract the offence under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities
Act) 1989 both the conditions mentioned below must be fulfilled:

(1) the act amounting to insult should be audible; and,

(2) visible to the public, should be satisfied.

13. In the instant case, no-one is present in Mr. Baldev’s office while he shouted at him so we
can say that neither Mr. Baldev is audible to anyone nor the place come within the ambit of
‘public view’ as he shouted on Mool Chand within the four corners of the walls. So, it does
come under ‘public view’.

ISSUE 2:- WHETHER THE MR. BALDEV IS PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3(1) (R) AND 3(1) (S)
OF THE SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBE (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT)
SSSS1989 OR NOT FOR MAKING CASTIEST REMARKS AND HUMILIATED MOOL CHAND?

14. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that Mr. Baldev is not liable under
Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act because it doesn’t come within the ‘public view’. Also, the
castiest remarks made by Mr. Baldev on phone call to Mool Chand does not come within the
‘public view, as same was held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that the use of
the casteist words during a phone call, away from public view, does not amount to an offence
under the SC/ST Act.

15. Pradeep Kumar vs State of Haryana and another 12, The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled
that the use of the casteist words during a phone call, away from public view, does not amount to an
offence under the SC/ST Act. Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill passed the order on May 14 on a plea
challenging the framing of charges against two persons from Kurukshetra who allegedly made
casteist remarks over mobile phone against their village head.

12
CRR No. 1354 of 2019 (O&M) -1- CRR No. 1574 of 2019 (O&M)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 13.

 “Merely uttering such wrong words in the absence of any public view does not show any
intention or mens rea (the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime)
to humiliate the complainant who besides being Sarpanch, belongs to Scheduled Caste
community.”13

16. Pappu Singh vs State of U.P14., in this case the court was of the view that simply addressing a person by
his caste without any intention to insult or intimidate does not constitute offence under Section 3(1)(r) of
the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act) 1989. Mr. Baldev had no such
intention to humiliate him. He reacted like that in anger only. Also, when Mool Chand entered Mr.
Baldev’s Office there is no-one other than Mr. Baldev and Mool Chand so it will also not come under
“public view”. So, he is not punishable under this Act 15.
17. Alka A. Misra vs J.P. Shoke16, the court held that if the things happened in office of a company, it cannot
be said that the office was visible to public at large. Therefore, no offence made out.
18. Govind Das vs State of Orissa17, to attract the provisions of Section 3(1) (r), it is necessary that the insult
or the intimidation must be done at a place in public view.
In the instant case also, neither the office comes within the ambit of “public view” because no-one is
present in Mr. Baldev’s Office while Mool Chand visited there nor Mr.Baldev had any intention to
humiliate Mool Chand. Here, the essential ingredients does not fulfill as mentioned above in V.P
SHETTY’S CASE. So, Mr. Baldev will not be punishable under Section 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of sthe
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act) 1989.

13
https://www.outlookindia.com (last visited on Nov 10,2020)
14
2002 Cr.L.j. 1251
15
International Journal of Law, Volume 4; Issue 1; January 2018; Page No. 10-14(last visited on Nov11, 2020)
16
2003 Cr.L.j. 1333
17
(2000) 1 Ker LJ (NOC) 43 (SC)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 14.

 PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
humbly requested that this Hon’ble Supreme Court may be pleased to:

a) Dismissed the Petition raised by the Petitioner.

b) Quashed the charges against the Respondent.

And pass any such order which this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant in the interest of
Justice, Equity and Good Conscience. All of which is respectfully submitted.

For This Act of Kindness, the Respondents Shall Duty Bound Forever Pray.

Sd- (Counsel for the

Respondents)

Name : Shabahat
Class Roll No.: 206257
Sec.: D
Year/Sem. : IIIrd/Vth
Mentor : Apeksha Kumari Mam

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 15.