Section 3(1)(s): Abuse by Caste Name

For generations, caste names have been used not as descriptions but as weapons: a single word shouted across a lane to remind a man of the place society assigned him. Before 2016, such abuse had to be squeezed into the old clause (x), with its demanding requirement of intent to humiliate. The 2015 Amendment Act gave it a clause of its own. Clause (s) punishes abusing a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe member by caste name in any place within public view. This note explains what counts as caste-name abuse, how the public view requirement applies to roads, offices and homes, how (s) differs from (r), and what the Supreme Court decided in Swaran Singh, Hitesh Verma, Karuppudayar and Sohanvir.

Twin clauses: insult under (r) and caste abuse under (s)

Figure 1: Twin clauses: insult under (r) and caste abuse under (s)

1. The Statutory Text

Section 3(1)(s)

Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, ... (s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name 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.

Clause (s) had no counterpart in the 1989 Act. It came into force on 26 January 2016. Before that, caste-name abuse was prosecuted under clause (x) (now (r)), which required proof of intentional insult with intent to humiliate. Clause (s) targets the specific and common form of atrocity that is the caste slur.

The ingredients

Accused not a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The opening words of Section 3(1).
Victim a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Averred in the complaint and proved at trial.
Abuse. Words used to revile, degrade or insult, not merely to describe.
By caste name. The caste name, or a caste slur, must be the vehicle of the abuse.
In any place within public view. The same requirement as clause (r), with the same case law.

2. Meaning of Caste-Name Abuse

The core of clause (s) is the use of a caste name as an abuse. Naming a caste is not itself an offence: a person may mention caste in a census form, a matrimonial advertisement or a conversation about reservation. The offence lies in hurling the name at a member to degrade him. In Swaran Singh v. State (2008) the Supreme Court observed that a caste name historically used for a whole community, such as 'chamar', had become abusive and highly offensive when used to insult.

Laced with caste, or hurled as abuse. In Keshaw Mahto v. State of Bihar (January 2026), the Supreme Court held that merely saying a caste name does not constitute the offence. The abuses must be laced with the caste name, or the caste name must be hurled as an abuse.
Slurs and derivatives. Derogatory variants, nicknames and epithets for a caste count as the caste name when used to abuse.
Context shows the purpose. The same word may describe in one sentence and abuse in another. The tone, the setting, the accompanying words and the conduct around them decide which.
Specificity. The complaint or at least the charge-sheet should record the exact words used. General allegations that the accused 'used caste words' invite quashing (Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of U.P., 2023).

💡 Analogy: the label and the lash

A caste name used to describe is a label on a file. The same name thrown at a person to shame him is a lash. Clause (s) punishes the lash, not the label. Ask: was the name used to identify, or to wound?

3. Requirement of Public View

Clause (s) repeats the words 'in any place within public view'. Everything said about public view under clause (r) applies here. The Supreme Court has applied the test with increasing strictness, and many quashing orders under (s) turn on this one ingredient.

Where was the slur spoken? Place by place

Figure 2: Where was the slur spoken? Place by place

Public view versus public place

The question is not whether the place is public, but whether members of the public could see or hear the abuse. The gate of a private house is within public view (Swaran Singh, 2008); by the same logic, an empty road with no one about may not be. The Kerala High Court put it simply in Sajith v. State of Kerala (2026): what decides is the presence of the public, not the nature of the place.

Caste slur in private premises

Abuse inside a house, heard only by the parties and their families, is not within public view. In Sohanvir v. State of U.P. (2025) and Gunjan v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2026), the Supreme Court quashed charges under (s) for incidents inside homes. In Sohanvir the IPC charges continued; in Gunjan the Court found nothing to sustain even the general charges and quashed the whole case. Where the abuse was real, the remedy lies in the general law.

Caste slur in a public office

Closed chamber. An officer's chamber with no outsider present is not within public view (Karuppudayar v. State, 2025). The Delhi High Court applied the same reasoning to remarks made inside offices in Christine Swaroop Raj v. State (2026).
Open hall or counter. Where visitors, applicants or members of the public are present and can hear, an office is within public view.
Colleagues. In principle, independent co-workers present at the time should count as members of the public; the point has not been directly decided. In Karuppudayar, the colleagues entered only after the words were spoken.

Caste slur on a road or in a public place

This is the paradigm case of clause (s). A caste slur shouted on a village road, at a bus stand, in a market, or at a temple festival, with others present, satisfies public view. The FIR should still name at least one independent witness, because the presence of the public is an ingredient to be proved, not presumed.

Presence of public witnesses

Independent, not interested. Relatives and friends of the complainant are not the public (Swaran Singh, 2008; Hitesh Verma, 2020).
Numbers do not matter. Even a small number of independent persons suffices, 'howsoever small' (Daya Bhatnagar v. State, Delhi High Court, 2004).
Present at the time. Public view is judged at the moment of the abuse; later arrivals do not supply it (Karuppudayar, 2025).
Named in the record. Their names and statements should appear in the charge-sheet; a bare statement that 'people were present' is weak.

4. The Leading Cases

The Supreme Court on caste abuse and public view

Figure 3: The Supreme Court on caste abuse and public view

📖 Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435

Facts: A Scheduled Caste driver was called 'chuda-chamar' and had dirty water thrown on him at the gate of a house in Delhi.

Held: The gate of a house is within public view. A lawn visible from the road is within public view. Inside a building, the offence is committed if members of the public, 'not merely relatives or friends', are present. The caste name, used to insult, was highly offensive.

Ratio: Public view is about visibility and audibility to the public; a caste name used as an insult is abusive in itself.

📖 Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710

Facts: Abuse and threats alleged inside the informant's building during a civil dispute over land, with no outsider present.

Held: The atrocity charge was quashed for want of public view and caste intent; the general charges continued.

Ratio: Four walls and no independent public means no offence under the public view clauses.

📖 Karuppudayar v. State, 2025 INSC 132 (decided 31 January 2025)

Facts: The appellant allegedly abused a Scheduled Caste Revenue Inspector by caste name inside his office chamber at the Revenue Divisional Office, Lalgudi. Colleagues came in only afterwards. The charges included Section 3(1)(r) and (s).

Held: The Supreme Court (B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih, JJ.) quashed the charge-sheet. A place within public view must be open so that members of the public can witness or hear the utterance; words spoken within four walls with no public present do not qualify.

Ratio: Public view is a hard ingredient for both (r) and (s), tested at the time of the utterance.

📖 Sohanvir alias Sohanvir Dhama v. State of U.P., 2025 INSC 1397 (decided December 2025)

Facts: The complainant, a Scheduled Caste woman who worked as a village sweeper, alleged that the appellants chased her into her house, abused her by caste, assaulted her and threatened her. The trial court summoned them under Sections 323 and 504 IPC and Section 3(1)(s) of the Act.

Held: A bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. quashed the proceedings under Section 3(1)(s) because the complainant's house could not be considered a place within public view. Following Hitesh Verma and Karuppudayar, the Court allowed the trial under the IPC sections to continue.

Ratio: Clause (s) requires public view as strictly as clause (r); abuse inside a home, without outsiders, falls under the general law.

⚠ Strict reading, not dilution

These decisions do not say caste abuse at home is acceptable. They say Parliament chose to make public caste abuse an atrocity, because its harm lies in public degradation. Private abuse remains punishable as insult, intimidation, hurt or assault under the BNS, and investigators should record independent witnesses wherever the facts allow.

5. Clause (r) versus Clause (s)

Conduct. Clause (r) punishes insult or intimidation of any kind; clause (s) punishes abuse through the caste name.
Mental element. Clause (r) expressly requires intent to humiliate, and after Shajan Skaria that intent must be caste-directed. Clause (s) states no mental element. Whether using a caste name as abuse is enough, or a separate caste-directed intent must be shown, is not fully settled; in Keshaw Mahto (2026), dealing with both clauses, the Supreme Court still stressed intent to humiliate on account of caste. The safe course is to plead and prove it.
Caste name. Not required for (r); essential for (s).
Common ground. Both require an accused outside the protected groups, a victim within them, and a place within public view. Both carry six months to five years and fine.
Charging both. One incident often satisfies both. Courts accept joint charges, but the prosecution must plead and prove the separate ingredients of each: the words for (s), the intent to humiliate for (r).

💡 Memory aid: R is for Reason, S is for Slur

Clause R asks for the Reason behind the insult: humiliation on caste lines. Clause S asks for the Slur itself: the caste name used as abuse. Both need the same stage: public view.

6. Quick Revision and Memory Aids

'Label or lash'. Naming a caste is not an offence; hurling it as abuse is (Keshaw Mahto, 2026).
'New in 2016'. Clause (s) had no 1989 counterpart.
'Gate yes, house no'. Swaran Singh (2008) against Sohanvir (2025) and Gunjan (2026).
'Chamber closed, charge closed'. Karuppudayar (2025).
'Write the words'. Record the exact slur, the place and the independent witnesses (Ramesh Chandra Vaishya, 2023).

7. Frequently Asked Questions

Is calling a person by his caste name always an offence under (s)?

No. The name must be used as an abuse, in a place within public view, by a person outside the protected groups.

Does (s) require intent to humiliate?

The text does not say so, unlike (r). But the word 'abuses' requires that the caste name be used to revile, not merely to identify, and in Keshaw Mahto the Supreme Court also stressed intent to humiliate on account of caste. As the point is not fully settled, the prosecution should plead and prove intent.

A slur shouted from inside a house was heard by neighbours on the street. Is it within public view?

Yes, if independent neighbours could hear it. The test is whether the public could see or hear, not where the speaker stood.

Can the same incident be charged under both (r) and (s)?

Yes, if the ingredients of each are made out. Karuppudayar involved both clauses; both fell together for want of public view.

What happens to the case if the (s) charge is quashed?

Usually the trial continues for the general offences, such as insult, intimidation or hurt, as in Sohanvir. If those too lack foundation, the whole case may go, as in Gunjan.

8. Related Topics and Provisions

Topic 13: Basic Requirements of Section 3. Knowledge and caste nexus.
Topic 19: Section 3(1)(r). Intentional insult or intimidation, and the full law on public view.
Topic 21: Section 3(1)(t) to (v). Speech against the community as a group.
Section 3(1)(r), (s); BNS ss.351, 352. The provisions discussed