All NotesCriminal LawSC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

Section 3(1)(r) and Section 3(1)(s) Compared

Clauses (r) and (s) of Section 3(1) are the Act's most litigated pair, and they travel together in almost every FIR about caste abuse. Clause (r) punishes intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member in any place within public view; clause (s) punishes abusing a member by caste name in any place within public view. They share the punishment and the public-view requirement, but their acts and mental elements differ, and cases are won and lost on that difference. This note separates the two clauses, ingredient by ingredient, with the case that governs each point.

Section 3(1)(r) and Section 3(1)(s)

Figure 1: Section 3(1)(r) and Section 3(1)(s)

1. The Texts

Section 3(1)(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;

Section 3(1)(s)

abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view;

  • Lineage. Both descend from the single pre-2016 clause, Section 3(1)(x), which covered intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate in any place within public view. The 2016 amendment split it: (r) keeps the insult-intimidation offence, and (s) makes abuse by caste name a distinct offence.
  • Punishment. Both fall under the residuary punishment of Section 3(1): imprisonment from six months to five years, with fine.

2. The Act Required

  • Clause (r): insult or intimidation. Any words, gestures or conduct that insult or intimidate: humiliating a Dalit official before the public, threats carrying caste contempt, degrading treatment. The clause does not require the caste name to be spoken.
  • Clause (s): abuse by caste name. The abuse must carry the caste name itself as the sting. In Keshaw Mahto v. State of Bihar (2026), the Supreme Court held that the abuses must be laced with the caste name, or the caste name must have been hurled as an abuse; general abuse of a person who happens to be a Scheduled Caste member is not enough.
  • Descriptive use is not abuse. Mentioning a person's caste to identify or describe, without insult, is neither clause. The word must be used as a weapon.
  • The exact words matter. Because both clauses turn on what was said, the utterances should be outlined at least in the charge-sheet; a bare allegation that caste abuses were hurled does not sustain the charge (Ramesh Chandra Vaishya, 2023).

3. The Mental Element

  • Clause (r): double intent. The insult must be intentional, and it must be with intent to humiliate. In Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala (2024), the Supreme Court held that the intent must be to humiliate the victim for being a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe: not every intentional insult of a member attracts the clause, and knowledge of the victim's caste is not by itself enough.
  • Clause (s): the words carry the mind. The clause states no separate intent, but the requirement that the caste name be hurled as abuse builds the caste-directed hostility into the act itself (Keshaw Mahto, 2026).
  • Where both fail. An insult in a purely personal, property or money quarrel, unconnected with the victim's caste, is outside clause (r) (Hitesh Verma, 2020), and if the caste name is not used as abuse, outside clause (s) as well. The penal offences of intentional insult, criminal intimidation or defamation may still apply.

Charging (r), (s), or both

Figure 2: Charging (r), (s), or both

4. The Shared Requirement: Public View

  • Both clauses need it. The insult or abuse must occur in a place within public view: some member of the public, not merely relatives or friends of the victim, must be in a position to see or hear it (Swaran Singh, 2008).
  • Where it failed. Inside the four walls of a building with no public present (Hitesh Verma, 2020), inside an office chamber with colleagues arriving only afterwards (Karuppudayar, 2025), inside a house (Sohanvir, 2025), and in a residence with no independent witness (Gunjan, 2026), both clauses failed.
  • The victim's presence. The words must be directed at the victim in the victim's presence (Asmathunnisa, 2011); clause (s) presupposes that the member is the one abused.

5. Charging and Overlap

  • Usually charged together. Caste-name abuse hurled to humiliate satisfies both clauses, and FIRs routinely cite (r) and (s) together. Conviction can rest on either clause the evidence sustains.
  • (r) without (s). Humiliation without the caste name: forcing a Dalit officer to hold his ears before a crowd, threats of caste violence without the slur.
  • (s) without (r) is rare. Hurling the caste name as abuse will almost always also show intent to humiliate; Keshaw Mahto itself reads the hostility to caste as the essence of both clauses, so in practice they stand or fall together.
  • Neither clause, but still an atrocity. Words promoting enmity or ill will against the communities as such fall under Section 3(1)(u), which has no public-view requirement, and disrespecting a late person held in high esteem by the communities falls under Section 3(1)(v) (Topic 21).

⚠ Answer-writing point

Work through four questions in order: what exactly was said; was it insult, intimidation or caste-name abuse; was the caste connection one of intent or of the words themselves; and was some member of the public in a position to witness it. Most reported acquittals and quashings fall at the first or last question.

6. Quick Revision

  • Common core. Both need an SC/ST victim, a non-SC/ST offender, and a place within public view; both carry six months to five years.
  • Clause (r). Intentional insult or intimidation, with intent to humiliate for being SC/ST (Shajan Skaria, 2024).
  • Clause (s). Abuse laced with the caste name, or the caste name hurled as abuse (Keshaw Mahto, 2026).
  • Both derive from. The pre-2016 Section 3(1)(x), split by the 2016 amendment.
  • The record. Exact words outlined at least in the charge-sheet (Vaishya, 2023).

7. Frequently Asked Questions

Can a person be convicted under clause (r) without using the caste name?

Yes. Clause (r) punishes insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate for being SC/ST; the caste name is not an ingredient.

Is calling someone by their caste always an offence under clause (s)?

No. The caste name must be used as abuse. Descriptive or neutral mention is not the offence.

Do both clauses require the victim to be present?

Yes. The insult or abuse must be directed at the member in his or her presence, within public view.

If public view is absent, is the accused free of all charges?

Not necessarily. The atrocity clauses fail, but penal offences such as intentional insult or criminal intimidation may continue.

8. Related Topics and Provisions