Use of Bhangi, Neech terms does not amount to casteist slur: Raj HC

Justice Birendra Kumar stated that there is no such thing as "Bhangi, Neech, Bhikhari, Mangani" to describe castes and hence a person cannot be booked under SC/ST Act.

The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court has made a significant verdict regarding the interpretation of certain alleged derogatory terms, stating that there is no such thing as “Bhangi, Neech, Bhikhari, Mangani” to describe castes and hence a person cannot be booked under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act).

The judgement was passed by Justice Birendra Kumar on Wednesday, November 13, during a hearing concerning four people accused of using these terms to insult public servants during a land inspection in Jaisalmer in January 2011.

“These words were not caste names and neither was there an allegation that the four men knew the castes of the latter”, Justice Kumar said, according to a report by LiveLaw.

Background of the case

The case unfolded during an official inspection aimed at addressing an alleged land encroachment. The situation escalated when the accused reportedly obstructed the officials and hurled abusive language at them.

Also Read
Dalit man killed in clash in Greater Noida village

Initially, police launched an investigation and a negative report was submitted, showing that there was no sign of corruption. However, following the violent protest petition was moved seeking to quash the case by the officials involved, the trial court framed several charges against the accused under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the SC/ST Act.

Court’s findings

While passing the judgment, the High Court emphasised that there was no substantiation that the terms used were used to insult and humiliate public servants based on caste.

Justice Kumar further pointed out that the question words were not caste-specific and said that there was no evidence that the accused persons were aware of the caste of the said officials. The court further stated, “The words used were not caste names nor is there an allegation that the petitioners were known to the caste of the public servants”.

The court also noted that all the witnesses present at the scene were either of the prosecution or the officials and no third party was present to support the allegations. This absence of evidence prevented the court from placing charges under Section of the SC/ST Act.