.webp)
The Delhi High Court has set aside an order framing charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the management officials of Trans World Radio India, holding that the allegations, even if accepted at face value, did not satisfy the statutory requirement that the alleged insult must have occurred "within public view." The Court, however, clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the allegations under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration.
Background of the Case
The petition before the High Court challenged a 2012 order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Saket Courts, directing that charges be framed under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act against four senior officials of Trans World Radio India. The complainants, who worked as safai karamcharis with the organisation, had alleged that they were subjected to caste-based insults, discrimination, pressure to convert to Christianity and threats relating to their employment.
The petitioners argued that the essential ingredients of the offence were missing. They also pointed out that the alleged caste-based remarks were introduced only in a later complaint, whereas earlier complaints mainly referred to allegations of religious conversion and workplace discrimination. They further relied on police status reports, which stated that the allegations could not be substantiated during the inquiry.
Court's Observations
Justice Madhu Jain observed that while courts should not conduct a detailed examination of evidence at the stage of framing charges, they must still ensure that every essential ingredient of the alleged offence is disclosed from the complaint itself.
The Court noted that Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, as it stood before the 2015 amendment, specifically required that the alleged insult or intimidation take place "in any place within public view."
Referring to the Supreme Court's decisions in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the High Court reiterated that an alleged caste-based remark made inside a private building would not automatically attract the provision unless it was made in the presence of members of the public.
The bench observed:
"The requirement that the act must occur within public view is a statutory ingredient of the offence and cannot be dispensed with."
Examining the complaint, the Court found that the complainants themselves had alleged that the remarks were made inside the respective offices of the petitioners. Importantly, the complaint did not state that any independent member of the public was present during those incidents.
"The complaint, on its own showing, does not prima facie disclose that the alleged insult or intimidation occurred 'in any place within public view'," the Court recorded.
Justice Jain further observed that although disputed factual issues must ordinarily be decided during trial, an accused cannot be required to face trial where the complaint itself does not disclose the foundational ingredients of the alleged offence.
Decision
Allowing the petition, the Delhi High Court set aside the 22 March 2012 order only to the extent that it directed framing of charges under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The matter has been remanded to the trial court to reconsider, in accordance with law, whether any charges under the Indian Penal Code are made out. The High Court expressly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of those allegations and directed the trial court to decide the issue independently.
The petitioners have been directed to appear before the trial court on 13 August 2026.
Case Details
Case Title: Christine Swaroop Raj & Ors. v. State & Ors.
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 2555/2012
Judge: Justice Madhu Jain
Decision Date: 21 July 2026
