NAME- VINITA CHOUDHARY

BATCH – 2018-23
MODULE- MOOT COURT

Facts
Gyan Prakash was chosen as a Ward Member of Ward No. 9 of Bhatpura town. Gyan
Prakash had a place with a Scheduled Caste (SC) and the seat to which he was chosen was
saved for SC. The body was led by Taansen who had a place with General Category.
Once, Taansen needed to meet Gyan Prakash to talk about issues connecting with tidiness in
Ward No. 9. In this manner, on December 5, 2021 Taansen sent him a message through
WhatsApp, welcoming him for an individual gathering in his chamber at 11 AM. Gyan
Prakash was occupied that day and, subsequently, he read the message at 11.30 AM. He
quickly called Taansen to illuminate him that he would reach in the blink of an eye.
Nonetheless, Taansen began yelling at him for getting late. He made casteist comments and
embarrassed him. Around then, a representative was additionally sitting in the chamber.
Regardless of the affront and embarrassment, Gyan Prakash went to the Municipality to go to
the gathering. When he went into the chamber, Taansen blew up and manhandled him on the
name of his rank. He yelled at him saying: "Get lost from my office; if not I will make you
clean the roads."
Around then, there was no third individual inside the chamber. Gyan Prakash left the
chamber as Taansen was not paying attention to him. He hurried to the Police Station to enlist
a FIR against Taansen. At the underlying phase of the case, the preliminary court observed
that an at first sight body of evidence had been made out against Taansen. Along these lines,
on February 5, 2022, the court outlined charges under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Blamed Taansen tested the request for outlining of charges under the steady gaze of the
Allahabad High Court.
The High Court held that the casteist slanders made telephonically or without a trace of a
third individual didn't establish an offense inside the significance of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)
(s) of the Act, on the grounds that the supposed comments were not made "at a spot inside
general visibility" as expected under these arrangements. The court likewise said that the Act
is a reformatory rule which should be completely interpreted.
Accordingly, the High Court suppressed the request for outlining the charges on February
14, 2022. The court additionally denied giving the authentication to offer under the watchful
eye of the Supreme Court under Article 134A of the Constitution of India. Wronged by the
request for the High Court, Gyan Prakash documented a Special Leave to Appeal under the
watchful eye of the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution and the equivalent
was conceded for hearing by the court.
Issues
1. Whether the respondent be held at risk under area 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) SC and ST
Prevention of Atrocities Act?
2. Whether telephonic discussion can be ordered as an offense under the Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?

Rule
Area 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Disciplines for offenses of abominations: Whoever, not being an individual from a Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, (r) deliberately affronts or threatens with expectation to
embarrass an individual from a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any spot inside
general visibility; (s) mishandles any individual from a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe by position name in any spot inside general visibility;
Application
The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was
authorized to work on the social monetary states of the weak segments of the general public
as they have been exposed to different offenses like insults, embarrassments and provocation.
The object of the Act is in this way to rebuff the violators who cause insults, embarrassments
and provocation and submit the offense as characterized under Section 3 of the Act."
On account of Hitesh verma v. Condition of uttrakhand and anr, the Court recognized the
accompanying two as the vital elements of the offense under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act:
1. "deliberately affronts or threatens with expectation to embarrass an individual from a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and
2. in any spot inside general visibility."
With Respect to the first Ingredient, Court mentioned the accompanying observable facts:
"All put-downs or scares to an individual won't be an offense under the Act except if such
affront or terrorizing is because of casualty having a place with Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe. The object of the Act is to work on the financial states of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are kept number from getting social equality. Along
these lines, an offense under the Act would be made out when an individual from the weak
part of the Society is exposed to outrages, embarrassments and badgering. The affirmation of
title over the land by both of the gatherings isn't because of either the outrages,
embarrassments or badgering. Each resident has a privilege to benefit their cures as per
regulation.
Expounding upon the second fixing, the Court noticed:
"What is to be viewed as "place in general visibility" had come up for thought under the
steady gaze of this Court in the judgment announced as Swaran Singh and Ors. v. State
through Standing Counsel and Ors. The Court had drawn qualification between the
articulation "public spot" and "in any spot inside general visibility". It was held that assuming
an offense is submitted external the structure for example in a yard outside a house and the
grass should be visible to somebody from the street or path outside the limit divider, then, at
that point, the grass would absolutely be a spot inside the general visibility. Running against
the norm, in the event that the comment is made inside a structure yet a few individuals from
people in general are there (not just family members or companions) then, at that point, it
wouldn't be an offense since it isn't in the general visibility.
Additionally, in a new judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a casteist slur
made over a cell phone, won't be classified as an offense under the Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The accused had contended that the represent abusing the Sarpanch on the telephone was not
inside the ambit of general visibility and wouldn't be an offense. In this manner, the
undertaking set up for the Court was the way to decipher "general visibility". Adopting a well
precedented tight strategy of understanding, the Court held that a call wouldn't be considered
as a demonstration inside "general visibility".

Conclusion
Further, the proviso of "general visibility" is just a difficult exercise done by the council to
guarantee that the security isn't abused. "General visibility" should be deciphered keeping this
in view. A translation that peruses "general visibility" as open at large defeats the difficult
exercise previously done by the council and steers the result against individuals from
Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe people group. The translation ought to be extended to
intend that assuming any outsider has been available and knew about a casteist slur being
said, it would fall under the domain of "general visibility", and the fixings as set down in
Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) would be fulfilled. Subsequently, the charges against the
respondent under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are not made out.
Additionally, it tends to be reasoned that the supposed discussion over the cell phone was not
in a public look nor saw by any outsider, the supposed utilization of standing words can't be
said to have been submitted inside the general visibility.