REPORTABLE   

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO._958__of 2011  [Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No. 8084 of 2009]  

 Arumugam Servai  .. Appellant (s)     -versus-    State of Tamil Nadu .. Respondent  

WITH    

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 959 of 2011  [Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 8428 of 2009]  

 Ajit Kumar and others  .. Appellant (s)     -versus-    State of Tamil Nadu  .. Respondent      

J U D G M E N T    MARKANDEY KATJU, J.    

“Har zarre par ek qaifiyat-e-neemshabi hai  Ai saaki-e-dauraan yeh gunahon ki ghadi hai”  

  - Firaq Gorakhpuri  

 “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are  endowed  by  their  creator  by  certain  inalienable  rights,  that  among  these  are  life,  liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”    

- American Declaration of Independence, 1776      1. Over  two  centuries  have  passed  since  Thomas  Jefferson wrote  those  

memorable  words,  which  are  still  ringing  in  history,  but  a  large  section  of  Indian

society still regard a section of their own countrymen as inferior.  This mental attitude  

is simply unacceptable in the modern age, and it is one of the main causes holding up  

the country’s progress.  

 2. Leave granted.  

  3. These appeals have been filed against the common judgment and order of the  

Madras  High  Court  dated  25.1.2008  in  Criminal  Appeal  Nos.  536-37  of  2001  

upholding the judgment of the Leaned 4th Additional  District  and Sessions  Judge,  

Madurai.  

  4. The  allegation  against  the  appellants  is  that  on  1.7.1999,  there  was  an  

altercation  between  the  appellants  and  the  complainants  PW1 Panneerselvam and  

PW2 Mahamani in a Temple Festival regarding the method of tying bullocks in the  

Jallikattu. The appellant Arumugam Servai then insulted PW1 by saying “you are a  

pallapayal and eating deadly cow beef”. Then accused 1, 7 and 9 attacked PW1 with  

sticks causing him injuries on his left shoulder. When PW2 Mahamani intervened he  

was attacked by the accused with sticks, and he sustained a fracture on his head, on  

which there was a lacerated wound.  

  5. Apart from the two injured eye-witnesses, there are 3 other eye-witnesses to  

the  occurrence.  The  doctor  has  testified  to  the  injuries.  The  head  fracture  on  

Mahamani indicates the deadly intent of the accused.  

  6. Both the Courts below have believed the prosecution case, and we see no

reason to differ. We have carefully perused the testimony of the witnesses, and we see  

no reason to disbelieve them.  

  7. The accused belong to the ‘servai’ caste which is a backward caste, whereas  

the  complainants  belong  to  the  ‘pallan’  caste  which  is  a  Scheduled  Caste  in  

Tamilnadu.  

  8. The word ‘pallan’ no doubt denotes a specific caste, but it  is also a word  

used in a derogatory sense to insult someone (just as in North India the word ‘chamar’  

denotes a specific caste, but it is also used in a derogatory sense to insult someone).   

Even  calling  a  person  a  ‘pallan’,  if  used  with  intent  to  insult  a  member  of  the  

Scheduled Caste, is, in our opinion, an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled  

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 (hereinafter referred  

to as the ‘SC/ST Act’). To call a person as a ‘pallapayal’ in Tamilnadu is even more  

insulting, and hence is even more an offence.  

 9. Similarly,  in  Tamilnadu  there  is  a  caste  called  ‘parayan’  but  the  word  

‘parayan’ is also used in a derogatory sense.  The word ‘paraparayan’ is even more  

derogatory.  

 10. In  our  opinion  uses  of  the  words  ‘pallan’,  ‘pallapayal’  ‘parayan’  or  

‘paraparayan’ with intent to insult is highly objectionable and is also an offence under  

the SC/ST Act. It is just unacceptable in the modern age, just as the words ‘Nigger’ or  

‘Negro’ are unacceptable for African-Americans today (even if they were acceptable  

50 years ago).

 11. In  the  present  case,  it  is  obvious  that  the  word ‘pallapayal’  was  used  by  

accused No. 1 to insult  Paneerselvam.  Hence,  it  was clearly an offence under the  

SC/ST Act.   

12. In  the  modern  age  nobody’s  feelings  should  be  hurt.  In  particular  in  a  

country like India with so much diversity (see in this connection the decision of this  

Court in  Kailas  vs.  State of Maharashtra in Crl. Appeal No. 11/2011 decided on  

5.1.2011) we must take care not to insult anyone’s feelings on account of his caste,  

religion, tribe, language, etc. Only then can we keep our country united and strong.  

  13. In Swaran Singh & Ors. vs.  State thr’ Standing Counsel & Anr.     (2008)  

12 SCR 132, this Court observed (vide paras 21 to 24) as under:  

“21. Today the word `Chamar' is often used by people belonging to the so- called upper castes or even by OBCs as a word of insult, abuse and derision.  Calling a person `Chamar' today is nowadays an abusive language and is  highly  offensive.  In  fact,  the  word  `Chamar'  when  used  today  is  not  normally used to  denote  a caste  but  to  intentionally insult  and humiliate  someone.  

22.     It may be mentioned that when we interpret section 3(1)(x) of the Act  we have to see the purpose for which the Act was enacted. It was obviously  made to prevent indignities, humiliation and harassment to the members of  SC/ST community, as is evident from the Statement of Objects & Reasons  of the Act. Hence, while interpreting section 3(1)(x) of the Act, we have to  take into account the popular meaning of the word `Chamar' which it has  acquired  by  usage,  and  not  the  etymological  meaning.  If  we  go  by  the  etymological  meaning,  we may frustrate  the  very object  of  the  Act,  and  hence that would not be a correct manner of interpretation.  

23.     This is the age of democracy and equality. No people or community  should  be  today  insulted  or  looked  down  upon,  and  nobody's  feelings

should be hurt. This is also the spirit of our Constitution and is part of its  basic features. Hence, in our opinion, the so-called upper castes and OBCs  should  not  use  the  word  `Chamar'  when  addressing  a  member  of  the  Scheduled Caste, even if that person in fact belongs to the `Chamar' caste,  because use of such a word will hurt his feelings. In such a country like ours  with  so  much  diversity  -  so  many  religions,  castes,  ethnic  and  lingual  groups, etc. - all communities and groups must be treated with respect, and  no one should be looked down upon as an inferior. That is the only way we  can keep our country united.  

24.      In our opinion, calling a member of the Scheduled Caste `Chamar'  with  intent  to  insult  or  humiliate  him  in  a  place  within  public  view  is  certainly an offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Act.  Whether  there was  intent  to  insult  or  humiliate  by  using  the  word  `Chamar'  will  of  course  depend on the context in which it was used”.     

14. We would also like to mention the highly objectionable two tumbler system  

prevalent  in many parts  of Tamilnadu.  This  system is that  in many tea shops and  

restaurants there are separate tumblers for serving tea or other drinks to Scheduled  

Caste  persons  and  non-Scheduled  Caste  persons.  In  our  opinion,  this  is  highly  

objectionable, and is an offence under the SC/ST Act, and hence those practicing it  

must be criminally proceeded against and given harsh punishment if found guilty.   All  

administrative and police officers will be accountable and departmentally proceeded  

against  if,  despite  having  knowledge  of  any such  practice  in  the  area  under  their  

jurisdiction they do not launch criminal proceedings against the culprits.  

  15. In  Lata  Singh   vs.    State  of       U.P.  & Anr   (2006)  5  SCC 475,  this  Court  

observed (vide paras 14 to 18) as under:  

“14.   This case reveals a shocking state of affairs. There is no dispute that  the petitioner is a major and was at all relevant times a major. Hence she is  free to marry anyone she likes or live with anyone she likes. There is no bar  to an inter-caste marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act or any other law.

Hence, we cannot see what offence was committed by the petitioner,  her  husband or her husband's relatives.  15.     We are of the opinion that no offence was committed by any of the  accused (the couple who had an inter caste marriage) and the whole criminal  case in question is an abuse of the process of the Court as well as of the  administrative  machinery at  the  instance  of  the  petitioner's  brothers  who  were only furious because the petitioner married outside her caste. We are  distressed  to  note  that  instead  of  taking  action  against  the  petitioner's  brothers for their unlawful and high-handed acts (details of which have been  set  out  above)  the  police  has  instead  proceeded  against  the  petitioner's  husband and his relatives.  16.     Since  several  such  instances  are  coming  to  our  knowledge  of  harassment, threats and violence against young men and women who marry  outside their caste, we feel it necessary to make some general comments on  the matter. The nation is passing through a crucial transitional period in our  history,  and  this  Court  cannot  remain  silent  in  matters  of  great  public  concern, such as the present one.  17.     The  caste  system  is  a  curse  on  the  nation  and  the  sooner  it  is  destroyed the better. In fact, it is dividing the nation at a time when we have  to be united to face the challenges before the nation unitedly. Hence, inter- caste  marriages  are  in  fact  in  the  national  interest  as  they  will  result  in  destroying  the  caste  system. However,  disturbing  news  are  coming  from  several parts of the country that young men and women who undergo inter- caste  marriage,  are  threatened  with  violence,  or  violence  is  actually  committed  on  them.  In  our  opinion,  such  acts  of  violence  or  threats  or  harassment are wholly illegal and those who commit them must be severely  punished. This is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes  a major he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes. If the parents of the  boy or girl do not approve of such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage the  maximum they can do is that they can cut off social relations with the son or  the  daughter,  but  they cannot  give threats  or  commit or instigate  acts  of  violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes such inter-caste or  inter- religious marriage. We, therefore, direct that the administration/police  authorities throughout the country will see to it that if any boy or girl who is  a major undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a woman or  man who is a major, the couple are not harassed by any one nor subjected to  threats or acts of violence, and any one who gives such threats or harasses  or commits acts of violence either himself or at his instigation, is taken to  task by instituting criminal proceedings by the police against such persons  and further stern action is taken against such persons as provided by law.  18.     We sometimes hear of `honour' killings of such persons who undergo  inter-caste  or  inter-religious  marriage  of  their  own  free  will.  There  is  nothing  honourable  in  such  killings,  and  in  fact  they  are  nothing  but  barbaric and shameful acts of murder committed by brutal, feudal minded

persons who deserve harsh punishment. Only in this way can we stamp out  such acts of barbarism”.  

16. We  have  in  recent  years  heard  of  ‘Khap  Panchayats’  (known  as  katta  

panchayats in Tamil Nadu) which often decree or encourage honour killings or other  

atrocities in an institutionalized way  on boys and girls of different castes and religion,  

who wish to get married or have been married, or interfere with the personal lives of  

people. We are of  the  opinion  that  this  is  wholly illegal  and has to be ruthlessly  

stamped  out.  As  already  stated  in  Lata  Singh’s case  (supra),  there  is  nothing  

honourable in honour killing or other atrocities and, in fact, it is nothing but barbaric  

and shameful murder. Other atrocities in respect of personal lives of people committed  

by brutal, feudal minded persons deserve harsh punishment.  Only in this way can we  

stamp out such acts of barbarism and feudal mentality.  Moreover, these acts take the  

law into their own hands, and amount to kangaroo courts, which are wholly illegal.  

17. Hence,  we  direct  the  administrative  and  police  officials  to  take  strong  

measures to prevent  such atrocious  acts.  If  any such incidents  happen,  apart  from  

instituting criminal proceedings against those responsible for such atrocities, the State  

Government is directed to immediately suspend the District Magistrate/Collector and  

SSP/SPs of the district as well as other officials concerned and chargesheet them and  

proceed against them departmentally if they do not (1) prevent the incident if it has  

not  already  occurred  but  they  have  knowledge  of  it  in  advance,  or  (2)  if  it  has  

occurred,  they  do  not  promptly  apprehend  the  culprits  and  others  involved  and  

institute criminal proceedings against them, as in our opinion they will be deemed to  

be directly or indirectly accountable in this connection.

18.  The appellants  in  the present  case have  behaved like uncivilized  savages,  and  

hence deserve no mercy. With these observations the appeals are dismissed.  

19. Copy  of  this  judgment  shall  be  sent  to  all  Chief  Secretaries,  Home  

Secretaries and Director Generals of Police in all States and Union Territories of India  

with the direction that it should be circulated to all officers up to the level of District  

Magistrates  and  S.S.P./S.P.  for  strict  compliance.   Copy  will  also  be  sent  to  the  

Registrar Generals/Registrars of all High Courts who will circulate it to all Hon’ble  

Judges of the Court.  

……. …………………….…J.   (Markandey Katju)  

………………………………J.   (Gyan Sudha Misra)  

New Delhi;  19th April, 2011