Section 3(1)(t), (u) and (v): Sacred Objects, Hate Speech and Revered Persons

An attack on a community does not always touch a body. A garland of shoes on a statue of Dr Ambedkar, a video that portrays Dalits as a menace, a post that mocks Birsa Munda: each wounds an entire people at once. The 2015 Amendment Act answered these harms with three new clauses. Clause (t) protects objects held sacred or in high esteem; clause (u) punishes promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes; clause (v) punishes disrespect to late persons they hold in high esteem. This note explains each clause, their reach into social media and online video, and the line between protected free speech and punishable caste hatred, with Shajan Skaria as the Supreme Court's guide.

Figure 1: Clauses (t), (u) and (v): protecting the community, its symbols and its heroes

1. The Statutory Text

All three clauses are new; none had a counterpart in the 1989 Act. They share three features. The accused must not be a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe member. The harm is to the community as a whole, so the text speaks of 'members of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes' in the plural. And unlike clauses (r) and (s), none of them requires a place within public view.

2. Clause (t): Sacred Objects and Objects Held in High Esteem

• Destroys, damages or defiles. Three forms of conduct. Destruction ends the object; damage impairs it; defilement pollutes or dishonours it without necessarily harming it physically, for instance smearing dung or garlanding it with footwear.
• Sacred or in high esteem. The clause covers two categories. Sacred objects would include idols, religious symbols and similar objects of a community's own tradition. Objects held in high esteem go beyond religion to symbols of dignity and memory, such as a statue of Dr B.R. Ambedkar or a portrait of Sant Ravidas.
• Generally known. The esteem must be common knowledge, not a private attachment. The prosecution shows that the community widely reveres the object, and that the accused, being part of the same society, would know it.
• Statue, photograph and portrait. The Explanation removes any doubt: these are objects for the clause. A photograph of Dr Ambedkar in a village library is as protected as a bronze statue at the crossroads.
• No public view needed. Defiling a statue at night, unseen, is still an offence; the harm lies in the insult to the community when it is discovered.

Reported High Court decisions on clause (t) are mostly bail orders in cases of broken Ambedkar statues or defaced portraits, such as Lallu v. State of M.P. (2022) and M. Ajay Kumar v. State (Karnataka High Court, 2026). They show the clause in regular use but do not yet lay down detailed tests. The general law adds BNS Section 298 (injuring or defiling a place of worship or sacred object, with intent to insult religion) and BNS Section 324 (mischief). Clause (t) is wider than Section 298 because it needs no religious object and no intent to insult religion.

3. Clause (u): Promoting Enmity, Hatred or Ill-Will

Enmity, hatred and ill-will

The three words form a rising scale. Ill-will is a feeling of dislike or malevolence; hatred is intense aversion; enmity is active hostility. The clause punishes not only success but also an attempt to promote any of them. The feeling must be directed against 'members of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes', that is, against the community as a group.

• Group, not individual. In Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala (2024), the Supreme Court held that clause (u) comes into play only when a person tries to promote ill feeling or enmity against members of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes as a group, and not as individuals. The Madras High Court had said the same in Dr R. Radhakrishnan v. Assistant Commissioner of Police (2022).
• Promotes. The speech must push or spread the feeling, not merely express an opinion. Context, tone, repetition, the audience and the speaker's influence all matter.
• Attempt suffices. A speech that fails to stir the audience is still punishable if it was an attempt to promote hatred.

Modes of expression

• Written words. Pamphlets, posters, letters, articles, books, wall writing and text posts.
• Spoken words. Speeches at rallies, sermons, public announcements, and statements in interviews or broadcasts.
• Signs and visible representation. Gestures, symbols, cartoons, effigies, images, memes, and any visual depiction meant to degrade the community.
• 'Or otherwise'. A residuary phrase that covers any other mode, including songs, skits, films and digital content.

Social media and online videos

The clause is technology-neutral. A post, reel, tweet, video or livestream that promotes enmity against Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes as a group falls within 'written', 'spoken', 'visible representation' or 'otherwise'. Since clause (u) has no public view requirement, the debate about whether online content is 'within public view', which troubles clauses (r) and (s), does not arise. The questions are the usual ones: is the target the community, and does the content promote hatred? Reach and virality go to the impact and the sentence.

Figure 2: Clause (u) and the general hate speech offence

The general offence of promoting enmity between groups, BNS Section 196 (formerly Section 153A IPC), overlaps with clause (u). But clause (u) protects only Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, operates in one direction, needs no prior government sanction, and carries a mandatory minimum sentence with trial by a Special Court.

4. Clause (v): Disrespect to a Late Person Held in High Esteem

• Late person. The person must be deceased. Criticism of a living leader falls, if at all, under (r), (s) or defamation.
• Held in high esteem by SC or ST members. The person need not himself have been a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe member. Dr B.R. Ambedkar, Jyotiba and Savitribai Phule, Sant Ravidas and Birsa Munda are examples of figures widely revered in these communities. As with clause (t), the esteem must be generally known.
• Disrespects. Conduct or words that show contempt, mockery or dishonour. The clause does not use 'intentionally', but disrespect by its nature implies a deliberate slight.
• By words or any other means. Written or spoken words, gestures, images, videos, posts and performances.

Courts have tested (v) against the facts. In Devendra Rajiv Patil v. State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, 2025), an FIR over a phone call said to insult Dr Ambedkar was quashed because the call did not show any disrespect. In R.S. Bharathi v. State (2021), a political leader said that Scheduled Caste persons became High Court judges through the 'alms' of the Dravidian movement. The Madras High Court refused to quash the case, but the Supreme Court quashed it in July 2021, describing the speech as an intemperate rant that did not attract (u) or (v). Offensive words are not enough; the ingredients must be met.

5. Free Speech versus Caste-Hatred Offences

Figure 3: Criticism or caste hatred? A working test for clause (u)

• The constitutional frame. Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech, and Article 19(2) allows reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order, decency or morality, defamation and incitement to an offence. Clauses (u) and (v) are such restrictions, supported also by Articles 17 and 46.
• Discussion, advocacy, incitement. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court distinguished discussion and advocacy, which are protected however unpopular, from incitement, which may be restricted.
• Content, intent and impact. Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2021) identified three elements of hate speech: its content, the speaker's intent, and its harm or impact. The speech is judged by a reasonable person, not by the most sensitive listener, and speech by a person of influence weighs more.
• Law exists; enforcement lags. In Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India (2014) the Court described hate speech as an effort to marginalise individuals based on their membership in a group, and observed that the problem was not the absence of laws but their lack of effective execution.
• Satire and art. Satire, parody and art get latitude. In March 2025 the Karnataka High Court quashed an FIR over a university skit alleged to insult Dalits and Dr Ambedkar, treating it as satire protected by Article 19. The same content, repeated to spread contempt, could be judged differently.

6. Shajan Skaria and Online Publication

Shajan Skaria teaches three lessons for online cases. First, courts read the whole content, not isolated phrases, and may watch or read it at the bail stage. Second, criticism of an SC/ST public figure, however harsh, is not an atrocity without the caste element. Third, clause (u) is about the community: a video that portrays Dalits or Adivasis as a class as criminal, impure or inferior falls within it, while a video attacking one Dalit politician's record does not.

7. Quick Revision and Memory Aids

• 'T-U-V: Thing, Us, Venerated'. (t) the sacred Thing; (u) hatred against Us, the community; (v) the Venerated late person.
• 'Statue, photo, portrait'. The three objects named in the Explanation to (t).
• 'Group, not individual'. Clause (u) protects the community as a group (Shajan Skaria, 2024).
• 'No stage needed'. Clauses (t), (u) and (v) do not require public view.
• 'Late means dead'. Clause (v) protects the memory of deceased figures only.
• 'Content, intent, impact'. The Amish Devgan triad for hate speech.

8. Frequently Asked Questions

Is vandalising a Buddha statue covered by clause (t)?

It can be, where the statue is generally known to be held sacred or in high esteem by the Scheduled Caste community concerned, as among Ambedkarite Buddhists, and the accused is not a member. There is no reported ruling on the point. It may also attract BNS Section 298.

Does a WhatsApp forward attacking Dalits as a group fall under (u)?

Yes, if it promotes or attempts to promote enmity, hatred or ill-will against them as a group. Forwarding with approving words may well amount to promoting, though there is no settled ruling; the context of the forward and the forwarder's own words matter.

Is disrespect to a living SC/ST leader covered by (v)?

No. Clause (v) applies only to a late person. A living leader may invoke (r), (s) or defamation, subject to their ingredients.

Does clause (u) need government sanction like BNS Section 196?

No. The Act contains no sanction requirement for (u), a practical difference from Section 196.

Is an academic critique of Dr Ambedkar an offence under (v)?

Reasoned criticism of ideas is not disrespect. Mockery, abuse or contempt directed at his person or memory is. The court looks at the whole work and its purpose.

9. Related Topics and Provisions

• Topic 7: Constitutional Framework. Articles 17, 19 and 46.
• Topic 19: Section 3(1)(r). Insult to an individual and online public view.
• Topic 20: Section 3(1)(s). Abuse by caste name.
• Section 3(1)(t), (u), (v); BNS ss.196, 298, 299, 324, 356; BNSS s.217. The provisions discussed