Does the SC-ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-1989 Apply to Social Media Abuse?

Does the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Apply to Social Media Abuse? – A Detailed Legal Guide

Introduction

In the digital age, social interactions have increasingly shifted to online platforms such as Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, Twitter (X), YouTube, ShareChat, and other social media networks. While these platforms have democratized expression and communication, they have also become breeding grounds for harassment, hate speech, and caste-based abuse.

For members of the Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST)—groups historically subjected to oppression and discrimination—online abuse can have serious social, psychological, and legal implications. As a result, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter “SC/ST Act, 1989”) has become increasingly relevant in the context of social media abuse.

Direct Answer:
Yes, the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 can apply to social media abuse when the content posted or circulated online constitutes caste-based insult, humiliation, intimidation, threats, or other acts defined as atrocities under the Act, provided the essential ingredients of the offense—especially the caste-based motive—are established.

This article provides a structured, in-depth, and comprehensive analysis of how the SC/ST Act, 1989 applies to social media abuse, including statutory provisions, judicial interpretations, procedural requirements, practical examples, challenges, and guidance for victims and accused persons.

1. Understanding the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

1.1 Purpose of the Legislation

The SC/ST Act, 1989 was enacted to eliminate caste-based atrocities and discrimination against SC/ST persons by:

Defining specific offenses that target caste-based crimes
Prescribing enhanced punishments
Creating Special Courts for speedy trial
Providing relief, rehabilitation, and protection to victims
Ensuring accountability of public servants and private individuals

The Act addresses not only physical violence but also social exclusion, intimidation, economic exploitation, and humiliation—recognizing that atrocities against SC/ST persons are multifaceted.

1.2 Definition of “Atrocities” Under the Act

The Act identifies numerous acts as atrocities, including but not limited to:

Intentional insult or intimidation intended to humiliate an SC/ST person
Denial of access to public places and services
Destruction or damage of property belonging to SC/ST persons
Forcing social or economic boycott
Assault, use of force, or violence
Sexual exploitation or abuse
Wrongful dispossession of land or premises

Although originally framed with physical and public offenses in mind, courts and lawmakers have interpreted the Act to adapt to changing societal realities, including digital abuse.

2. Social Media Abuse: Does It Fit Within the Scope of the SC/ST Act?

2.1 The Digital Medium Is Not Immune

Social media platforms extend the reach of speech and conduct beyond physical spaces into the digital realm. When caste-based abuse occurs online, it should be evaluated through the same legal lens as offline utterances if:

The victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, and
The offense is committed on the ground that the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.

The phrase “on the ground that” is a core element in the SC/ST Act and has been emphasized by the Supreme Court in cases such as Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020), which reinforces that the offense must be motivated by the victim’s caste identity.

2.2 Verbal Abuse and Caste Slurs on Social Media

Under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, the following acts are punishable:

Intentionally insulting or intimidating an SC/ST person with intent to humiliate in public view
Abusing any member of SC/ST by caste name in any place within public view

Online platforms qualify as “public view.” When hateful, derogatory, or caste-based abusive posts are made on social platforms accessible to the public, they are analogous to caste-insults made in a physical public space. For example:

Posting derogatory caste slurs about an SC/ST person
Sharing memes or cartoons targeting SC/ST identities with humiliating intent
Creating a Facebook group with caste-based hatred

Such conduct falls within the ambit of the SC/ST Act if it is intended to humiliate or intimidate the victim on caste grounds.

3. Key Legal Ingredients: When Online Abuse Attracts the SC/ST Act

For social media abuse to attract the SC/ST Act, the following conditions must be satisfied:

3.1 Victim Must Belong to an SC or ST Community

The identity of the victim as a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe must be established. This often requires:

Caste certificate or documentary evidence, or
Clear online or circumstantial evidence of caste identity

Courts will not entertain caste-neutral offenses under the SC/ST Act.

3.2 The Offense Must Be Caste-Motivated

It is not enough that the victim belongs to an SC/ST community. The abusive conduct must be committed because of the victim’s caste identity.

For example:

“You SC person should be ashamed”
“SCs are inferior and belong to lower caste”
“Tribal people should not use this facility”

These statements demonstrate caste-based motive.

3.3 The Abuse Must Be in “Public View”

The term “public view” applies to:

Public posts on Facebook, Instagram, X (Twitter), or YouTube
Open groups or pages
Viral WhatsApp forwards in large groups
Comments under public videos

Private messages in one-to-one chats may not automatically qualify unless shared with others or intended for dissemination.

3.4 Intent to Humiliate or Intimidate

The victim must show that the online conduct was intended to:

Humiliate socially
Intimidate or threaten
Expose the victim to hatred
Undermine dignity or social standing

This element is often evaluated from the context, language used, and reach of the post or message.

4. Related Penal Provisions Beyond the SC/ST Act

In addition to the SC/ST Act, social media abuse can attract:

4.1 Indian Penal Code (IPC)

Sections such as:

Section 499/500 – Defamation
Section 504 – Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace
Section 66A IT Act (Repealed) – Previously dealt with offensive messages
Sections 67/67A of the IT Act – Publishing obscene or derogatory content
Section 506 IPC – Criminal intimidation

However, when caste identity and public humiliation are central, the SC/ST Act takes precedence.

5. Jurisdiction and Law Enforcement Challenges

5.1 Jurisdiction in Cyber Cases

Cyber crimes do not have territorial limits. Police can:

Register FIR in the jurisdiction where the victim resides
Seek cooperation from cybercrime units
Coordinate with state or central cyber cells

5.2 Recording Digital Evidence

Police and courts increasingly rely on:

Screenshots
Web archives
Metadata
IP addresses
Platform logs

This evidence must be preserved carefully for legal proceedings.

6. Procedural Obligations of Police in Social Media SC/ST Act Cases

6.1 Mandatory FIR Registration

Under Section 18A of the SC/ST Act:

No preliminary inquiry is required
Police must register FIR promptly if a caste-based offense is disclosed

6.2 Role of Cybercrime Units

Transfer digital evidence to cybercrime cells
Conduct forensic analysis
Identify perpetrators through digital footprints

6.3 Protection for Victims and Witnesses

Police must:

Provide protection to victims from intimidation
Ensure anonymity if necessary
Safeguard witnesses from coercion

7. Judicial Interpretations and Evolving Jurisprudence

7.1 Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020)

The Supreme Court held:

Mere personal disputes do not attract the SC/ST Act
The offense must be committed on caste grounds

This judgment is crucial for social media cases where the motive may be unclear.

7.2 Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra (2018)

Although the Court introduced safeguards (later modified), it recognized the real potential for SC/ST Act misuse. Courts now carefully examine whether:

Caste identity was the real motive
The conduct amounts to humiliation and intimidation

8. Examples of Social Media Abuse Attracting the SC/ST Act

8.1 Hate Speech Against an Individual

Posting caste-slur-laden content about a specific SC/ST person
Using derogatory caste statements publicly

8.2 Targeted Humiliation or Ridicule

Uploading memes or doctored images aimed at humiliating SC/ST victims
Derogatory videos shared publicly

8.3 Threats or Incitement Against SC/ST Communities

Messages that encourage violence against SC/ST groups
Calls for exclusion from public places

Such conduct can be construed as intimidation and threat.

8.4 Mass Forwarding of Casteist Forward Messages

Sharing casteist hate forwards in multiple public groups
Encourages or normalizes caste prejudice

9. Distinguishing Between Free Speech and Caste Atrocities

Freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) is subject to “reasonable restrictions” under:

Public order
Decency and morality
Defamation
SC/ST Act protections

Online abuse that:

Targets caste identity
Inflicts social stigma
Incites hatred

extends beyond permissible free speech.

10. Remedies Available to Victims

10.1 Register an FIR Under the SC/ST Act

Approach local police
Provide screenshots, links, timestamps
Include witness details

10.2 Seek Compensation and Relief

Victims may:

Apply for compensation
Seek protection orders
Request social rehabilitation

10.3 File Cybercrime Complaints

In addition to FIR:

Register a cybercrime complaint
Seek platform takedown and preservation orders

11. Defenses Available to an Accused

An accused person can argue:

11.1 Lack of Caste Motive

Online abuse was not caste-based
Personal dispute unrelated to caste

11.2 No Public View Requirement

The message was private
Limited to a personal chat and not public

11.3 Contextual Interpretation

Language was not intended to humiliate
Statements were metaphorical or ambiguous

11.4 False Attribution

Account may be hacked
Digital impersonation

Swift cyber forensic evidence is critical.

12. Challenges in Applying the SC/ST Act to Social Media

12.1 Identifying the Perpetrator

Anonymous accounts
Fake profiles
VPN masking

Cybercrime investigation is essential.

12.2 Mixed or Ambiguous Intent

Courts must assess:

Context
Caste identity linkage
Public reach and impact

12.3 Large Volume of Digital Evidence

Police and courts must handle:

Screenshots
Archival data
Platform cooperation

13. Case Studies and Judicial Trends

Though there are limited reported judgments specifically addressing social media abuse under the SC/ST Act, judicial trends indicate:

Increasing acceptance of digital evidence
Recognition of online caste abuse as actionable
Stringent application where motive is clear

14. Recommended Precautions for Social Media Users

14.1 For Potential Victims

Document all abusive content
Report to police and cybercrime cell
Preserve evidence without deleting

14.2 For Users at Large

Avoid posting casteist content
Be mindful of language
Report hate speech immediately

14.3 For Law Enforcement

Treat social media abuse as serious offenses
Coordinate with cybercrime units
Ensure victim protection

15. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1. Can social media posts attract the SC/ST Act?

Yes, if they involve caste-based abuse intended to humiliate or intimidate.

Q2. Is a private message covered?

Not always; public visibility and intent to humiliate are key.

Q3. Can a group admin be held liable?

Yes, if the admin knowingly allows casteist content.

Q4. Is anticipatory bail allowed in such cases?

Generally no, under Section 18 and Section 18A.

Q5. Can the accused claim free speech?

Freedom of speech is subject to reasonable restrictions; casteist abuse may be restricted.

Conclusion

The SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was originally enacted to address caste-based atrocities in physical spaces. However, the law’s purpose of protecting the dignity and equality of SC/ST persons logically extends to digital environments, including social media — provided the essential ingredients of caste-based motive, public visibility, and intent to humiliate are present.

In clear terms:
The SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 applies to social media abuse when caste-based contempt, humiliation, or intimidation is committed against SC/ST individuals in a manner that satisfies the statutory requirements of the Act.

While freedom of speech remains a cornerstone of democracy, it does not extend to casteist hatred that undermines human dignity and constitutional equality. With society becoming increasingly digital, both law enforcement and courts are evolving to ensure that the protections of the SC/ST Act keep pace with changes in communication technology — safeguarding victims and holding perpetrators accountable in the online world as firmly as in the offline world.

Disclaimer: This information is intended for general guidance only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult with a qualified lawyer for personalized advice specific to your situation.

Advocate J.S. Rohilla (Civil & Criminal Lawyer in Indore)

Contact: 88271 22304