Before

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

S.L.P. NO.___/2020

(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950)

IN THEN MATTER OF:

Mool Chand …Petitioner

Versus

Union of India …Respondent

WRITTEN MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

Through Counsel(s) of the Petitioner

Mohd Naseem Roll no. 188337

Aayush Abhishek Roll no. 177619

Nerswn Brahma Roll no. 177641

MOOT PROBLEM - 1

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SL. NO. PARTICULAR PAGE NO.

1 Table Of Contents 2

2 List Of References And Cases

A. Statues And Rules Referred 3
B. Websites Referred 3
C. List Of Cases Referred 4
D. List Of Abbreviations 5

3 Statement Of Jurisdiction 6
4 Statement Of Facts 7
5 Statement Of Issues 8

6 Summary Of Arguments 9-12

7 Arguments Advanced 13-19

8 Prayer 20

2
 LIST OF REFERENCES AND CASES

A. LIST OF STATUES
1. The Constitution Of India, 1950
2. The Schedule Castes And Schedule Tribes Prevention Of Atrocities Act, 1989
3. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
4. Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, 1948

B. WEBSITES REFERRED
1. www.manupatra.com
2. www.indiankanoon.com
3. www.scconline.com
4. www.sci.gov.in

3
 C. LIST OF CASES REFERRED

SL.NO. CITATIONS PAGES

1 Prithvi Raj Chauhan Vs Union Of India & Ors. Writ Petition [C] No. 13,18
1015 Of 2018

2 C.Sathiyanathan Vs Veeramuthu On 14 November, 2008 In 14

Crl.O.P.No. 23515 Of 2006

3 In Taranath v. State of A.P. 1999(1) Crimes 188(A.P.) 16

4 In Raghunathrao Ganpatrao Vs Union Of India 15

5 In Boologha Pandian and Kandiah Pandian v. State 16

6 V.P.Shetty Vs Senior Inspector Of Police, Colaba, Mumbai And 15

Another 2005 Cr.Lj

7 E.Tirupum Reddy V. Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Nandyal 18

2006 Cr.Lj

8 K. Venugopal Reddy And Others V. The Deputy Superintendent Of 17

Police And Others 2016 (1) Alt (Cri) 177 (A.P.)

4
D. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

SC/ST The Schedule Castes And Schedule Tribes Prevention Of

Atrocities Act, 1989

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reports

SC Supreme Court

UOI Union Of India

HC High Court

SLP Special Leave Petition

PC Pre-Conception

UN United Nations

5
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The petitioner herein is Ms. Moolchand. Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950,
this Honorable Court has been vested, in its discretion, to grant special leave to appeal from any
judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any
court or tribunal in the territory of India.

The present memorandum set forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the present case.

ARTICLE 136: SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL BY THE SUPREME COURT

1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant
special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in
any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.
2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order
passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the
Armed Forces.

6
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1) That Moolchand petitioner herein was elected as a ward member of ward no. 9
Rajpura town and was an elected member of an elected body of a municipality and
he belongs to Schedule Caste community and the seat to which he was elected was
reserved for Schedule Caste.
2) The Municipality was chaired by Baldev who belongs to general category. On
04/12/2019 Baldev wanted to meet Moolchand to discuss issues relating to
cleanliness in ward no. 09. Therefore, on December 4, 2019 Baldev sent him a
message through Whatsapp, inviting him for personal meeting in his chamber at 11.
AM. Moolchand was busy that day and therefore he read the message at 11.30 AM.
He immediately called Baldev to inform him that he would reach shortly.
3) Moolchand left the chamber as Baldev was not listening to him. Moolchand
rushed to the police station to register an FIR against Baldev.
4) At the initial stage of the case trial court, found that a prima-facie case had been
made out against Baldev. Therefore on February 4, 2020, the court framed charges
under section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the (prevention of atrocities against SC/ST)
Act. 1989.
5) Baldev challenged the order of framing of charges before Allahabad High Court. The
High Court held that casteist aspersions made telephonically or in the absence of any
third person did not constitute the offence within the meaning of section 3(1)(r) and
3(1)(s) of the (prevention of atrocities against SC/ST) Act.1989. Because the
alleged remarks were not made at a place within public as required under the
provisions of the Act. The court also said that the act is a penal statute which must be
seriously construed. Thus, the High Court quashed the order of framing the charges on
April 6, 2020. The High Court also denied to provide the certificate to appeal before
the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

7
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1) That the allegations made against the respondent fall within the purview of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 even
if the telephonic call is not in a public view given the fact that at the time of
alleged telephonic call a third person (clerk) was also present in the chamber.
2) Should the Scheduled Tribe (prevention of atrocities Act 1989) being a penal
statute which must be seriously construed and benefit of strict interpretation is
given to accused.
3) Weather the high court of Allahabad wrongly quashed the order Dated
February 4, 2020 dated of trial court framing charges against the accused under
section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the scheduled tribe (prevention of atrocities) Act
1989.

8
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE NO.1: That the allegations made against the respondent

fall within the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 even if the telephonic
call is not in a public view given the fact that at the time of alleged
telephonic call a third person (clerk) was also present in the
chamber.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the provisions in the act
are specifically applicable in the facts and circumstances in the present case. When the
petitioner was abused through telephonic call by the respondent a third person was also
present in his chamber hence the offence was committed at a place that was in public
view.
Moreover, the trial court while framing charges against the respondent had taken into
consideration the statement recorded under section 161 Crpc. And that is an admissible
piece of evidence.
When the respondent made casteist remarks and humiliated the petitioner, at that time, a
clerk was also sitting in the chamber hence it cannot be considered as a private place.
Despite insult and humiliation, in front of the said clerk, Moolchand went to the
Municipality to attend the meeting. As soon as he entered into the chamber; Respondent
again got angry and abused petitioner on the name of his caste. He shouted at him saying.
“Get lost from my office; otherwise I will make you clean the streets”. At that time there
was no third person inside the chamber.
The fact of the abusing in private or public place can only be best find out during the trial

9
and discharge of the respondent without a fair trial is unconstitutional and ultra-vires.
Therefore the High court committed a gross error of judgment by quashing the order
passed by trial court framing charges against the respondent under section 3(1)(r) and
3(1)(s) of the scheduled tribe (prevention of atrocities) Act. 1989.
At the stage of framing of charge only the prima facie evidence are to be considered and deep
appreciation of evidence is made only during the procedure of trial. As per the circumstances
and allegation raised by the petitioner it is evident that there are enough prima facie material
on record to frame charges against the respondent under section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the
scheduled tribe ( prevention of atrocities) Act. 1989.

ISSUE NO.2: Should The Scheduled Tribe (prevention of

atrocities) Act. 1989 being a penal statute which must be seriously
construed and benefit of strict interpretation is given to accused.

Every statute must be so interpreted as to give wider implications to its provisions and the
mind and intent of the legislatures must be taken into consideration. In framing the charges of
The Scheduled Tribe (prevention of atrocities) Act. 1989 the intention of the parliament must
have been to better protect the Right and dignity of the members of these classes.
“The makers of the Constitution were fully conscious of the unfortunate position of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. To them equality, liberty and fraternity are but a
dream; an ideal guaranteed by the law, but far too distant to reach; far too illusory to touch.
These backward people and others in like positions of helplessness are the favored children of
the Constitution. It is for them that ameliorative and remedial measures are adopted to achieve
the end of equality. To permit those who are not intended to be so specially protected to
compete for reservation is to dilute the protection and defeat the very constitutional aim.”
The legislature has used the word ‘within public view’ under section 3(1)(s) of The Scheduled
Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and section 3(1)(r) of
the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act,

10
2015 instead of ‘public place’. The intention of the legislature was to cover private places also
if the offence under this act is committed against the persons of Schedule Castes and Schedule
Tribes. The offence of intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view means the public is able
to witness the offence committed under this act. The dictionary meaning of the word ''public''
is ''open to the people as a whole''. The dictionary meaning of the word ''view'' is vision or
sight as from a particular position. Reading these two meanings together in the context of the
words ''public view'', it only means that the public should have viewed the incident
irrespective of the place where the offence is committed, it may be private place or public
place.

ISSUE NO.3: Weather the high court of Allahabad wrongly

quashed the order Dated February 4, 2020, dated of trial court
framing charges against the accused under section 3(1)(r) and
3(1)(s) of the scheduled tribe ( prevention of atrocities) Act.1989

In the present case, the petitioner belongs to the Schedule Caste and is an elected
representative in local self Government bodies. He has been abused and a casteist remark has
been pronounced twice by the respondent. The dignity of the petitioner has been destroyed in
front of the clerk of his chamber and again he has been insulted by the respondent in his own
chamber. These two incidents while considered as a chain of events established the quilt of the
respondent beyond any doubt .
When the respondent made casteist remarks and humiliated the petitioner; at
that time, a clerk was also sitting in the chamber hence it cannot be considered as a
private place. Despite insult and humiliation, in front of the said clerk, Moolchand went to
the Municipality to attend the meeting. As soon as he entered into the chamber,
Respondent again got angry and abused petitioner on the name of his caste. He shouted at
him saying. “Get lost from my office; otherwise I will make you clean the streets”. At that
time there was no third person inside the chamber.

11
At the stage of framing of charge only the prima facie evidence are to be considered and deep
appreciation of evidence is made only during the procedure of trial. As per the circumstances
and allegation raised by the petitioner it is evident that there are enough prima facie material
on record to frame charges against the respondent under section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the
scheduled tribe (prevention of atrocities) Act. 1989.

12
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE NO.1: That the allegations made against the respondent

fall within the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 even if the telephonic
call is not in a public view given the fact that at the time of alleged
telephonic call a third person (clerk) was also present in the
chamber.

In Prathvi raj chauhan vs. U.O.I & ors. Writ petition [c] no. 1015 of 2018
Supreme court has observed that as a matter of fact, members of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes have suffered for long, hence, if we cannot provide them protective
discrimination beneficial to them, we cannot place them at all at a disadvantageous position
that may be causing injury to them by widening inequality and against the very spirit of our
Constitution. It would be against the basic human dignity to treat all of them as a liar or as a
crook person and cannot look at every complaint by such complainant with a doubt.
Eyewitnesses do not come up to speak in their favour. They hardly muster the courage to
speak against upper caste that is why provisions have been made by way of amendment for the
protection of witnesses and rehabilitation of victims. All humans are equal including in their
failings. To treat SCs and STs. as persons who are prone to lodge false reports under the
provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act for taking revenge or otherwise
as monetary benefits made available to them in the case of their being subjected to such
offence, would be against fundamental human equality. It cannot be presumed that a person of
such class would inflict injury upon himself and would lodge a false report only to secure
monetary benefits or to take revenge. If presumed so, it would mean adding insult to injury,
merely by the fact that person may abuse the provisions cannot be a ground to treat class with

13
doubt. It is due to human failings, not due to the caste factor. The monetary benefits are
provided in the cases of an acid attack, sexual harassment of SC/ST women, rape, murder, etc.
In such cases, FIR is required to be registered promptly.

In C.Sathiyanathan vs. Veeramuthu on 14 November, 2008

Madras High Court has held that an offence committed under the provisions of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989 can very well be taken
cognizance of by a Magistrate on a private complaint and that hence the challenge made to the
order of the Magistrate on the ground that a private complaint alleging commission of
offences punishable under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989 is incompetent, cannot be sustained. On the other hand,
this court has also held supra, that there is total non-application of mind on the part of the
learned Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance of the case. This court has clearly pointed out
how the Magistrate has mechanically taken a case on file without even applying his mind to
find out whether the allegations made in the complaint (of course without going into the
question of the correctness or otherwise of the same) would attract any one of the penal
provisions and if so, what exactly the penal provision or provisions under which the act or acts
on the part of the petitioner herein would amount to an offence. This court has also pointed out
that it is not obligatory on the part of the complainant to mention the penal provision and that
even if the complainant has quoted a wrong penal provision, the Magistrate has to take
cognizance of the offence citing the correct penal provision. In this case, it has also been
pointed out that the provisions mistakenly quoted by the complainant been mechanically
incorporated by the learned Judicial Magistrate in the order taking cognizance of the case. For
that reason alone the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate dated 16.06.2006 has got to be
quashed. However, this court has to consider whether complete justice can be rendered by
simply.

14
In Raghunathrao Ganpatrao vs. Union of India
This court held: “In our considered opinion this argument is misconceived and has no relevance
to the facts of the present case. One of the objectives of the Preamble of our Constitution is
'fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation.' It will
be relevant to cite the explanation given by Dr. Ambedkar for the word 'fraternity' explaining
that 'fraternity means a sense of common brotherhood of all Indians.' In a country like ours with
so many disruptive forces of regionalism, communalism and linguism, it is necessary to
emphasize and re-emphasize that the unity and integrity of India can be preserved only by a spirit
of brotherhood. India has one common Citizenship and every citizen should feel that he is Indian
first irrespective of other basis. In this view, any

V.P. Shetty v. Senior Inspector of Police, Colaba, Mumbai and Another 2005 Cr.Lj 3560
(Bomb.)
In Shetty’s Case [18] the Bombay High Court held “In various decisions apart from the
decision of Bai alias Laxmibai, this court has time and again held that the expression ‘within
public view’ has specific meaning and in order to attract the provision of law under Section
3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act, the acts amounting to insult or humiliation to the member of
Schedule Castes or Schedule Tribes should be visible and audible to the public’. Whether the
words were uttered in a public view or not is a question of fact which will have to be decided
during the trial.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that the use of casteist words during a phone
call, away from public view, does not constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act.
Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill passed the order on May 14 on a plea challenging the framing of
charges against two persons from Kurukshetra who allegedly made casteist remarks over
mobile phone against their village head.
“Once it is admitted that the alleged conversation over the mobile phone was not in a public
gaze nor witnessed by any third party, the alleged use of caste words cannot be said to have
been committed within the public view,”.

15
ISSUE NO.2: Should The Scheduled Tribe (prevention of
atrocities) Act. 1989 being a penal statute which must be seriously
construed and benefit of strict interpretation is given to accused.

In Boologha Pandian and Kandiah Pandian v. State

MANU/TN/0749/2003 Madras High Court observed that the judiciary on many occasions
considered the offence within the public view and sometimes not in public view. The words
used in sub section (s) are not ‘in public place’ but ‘within public view’ which means the
public must view the person being insulted for which he must be present and no offence on the
allegations under the said section gets attracted. The entire allegations contained in the
complaint even if taken to be true do not make out any offence against the petitioner Accused
intentionally insulted or intimidated complainant and caused aspersion in public place calling
his caste name as scheduled caste citizen. Place of occurrence was within public view.
Prosecution proved case beyond reasonable doubt; it was held no infirmity in Order passed by
Court

In Taranath v. State of A.P. 1999(1) Crimes 188(A.P.)

The main ingredient of Section 3(1)(s) of the act is insults or intimidates with intent to
humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place ‘within public
view’. The offence must be committed against the member of the scheduled caste or
scheduled tribe by the person who is not a member of Scheduled caste or scheduled tribes
‘within public view’. If any offence is committed by the member of Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribes against the member of Schedule Castes or Scheduled Tribes, then the
provisions of this act will not attract. In case, petitioner/accused belongs to Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled Tribe they are not punishable under section 3 of Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, as the provisions does not attract itself. The
provision of Section 3(l)(s) of the Act does not use the expression "public place", but instead
the expression used is "in any place within public view". There is a clear distinction between
the two expressions. If a private place, such as the courtyard of a residential house, can be
seen by someone from road or lane outside the boundary wall, and if the incident occurred at

16
such a place is audible and visible to the people, it would, indubitably constitute an offence
under section 3(1)(s) of the Act, it being a place within public view. In other words, a place of
offence can be a private place, but if the remarks made, with intent to humiliate a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, are audible and/or if members of public have viewed
the incident, even if the incident occurred at a private place, such as the courtyard of a house,
in my opinion, it would constitute an offence under section 3(1)(s) of the Act. It is evident
from the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act that it was enacted to prevent
indignities, humiliation and harassment to the members of SC/ST community. Therefore,
while interpreting the expression "in any place within public view", one will have to hold that
occurrence of the incident was viewed by the public. The expression "within public view" will
have to be read to mean that the offence under section 3(1)(s) of the Act, should take place in
view of the "public". If no member of the public has either seen the incident or heard the
remarks, then even if the place is a "public place" or a place "visible to the public", it would
not attract the ingredients of the offence under section 3(1)(s) of the Act.

K. Venugopal Reddy and Others vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police and Others
2016 (1) ALT (Cri) 177 (A.P.)
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to
humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.
It cannot make out the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(s) of the Act, as simply
addressing a person by his caste without any intention to insult or intimidate in public view. In
order to launch prosecution under Section 3(1)(s) of Act, two necessary and indispensable
ingredients must exist - Victim should belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and
there must be humiliation of such person in public view.

ISSUE NO.3: Weather the high court of Allahabad wrongly

quashed the order Dated February 4, 2020 dated of trial court
framing charges against the accused under section 3(1)(r) and
3(1)(s) of the scheduled tribe (prevention of atrocities) Act.1989.
17
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the provisions in the act
are specifically applicable in the facts and circumstances in the present case. When the
petitioner was abused through telephonic call by the respondent a third person was also
present in his chamber hence the offence was committed at a place that was in public
view.
Moreover, the trial court while framing charges against the respondent had taken into
consideration the statement recorded under section 161 Crpc. And that is an admissible
piece of evidence.

E.Tirupem Reddy v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nandyal 2006 Cr.Lj

Whether the words were uttered in a public view or not is a question of fact which will have to
be decided during the trial.
The fact of the abusing in private or public place can only be best find out during the trial
and discharge of the respondent without a fair trial is unconstitutional and ultra virus.
Therefore the High court committed a gross error of judgment by quashing the order
passed by trial court framing charges against the respondent under section 3(1)(r) and
3(1)(s) of the scheduled tribe (prevention of atrocities) Act. 1989.
At the stage of framing of charge only the prima facie evidence are to be considered and deep
appreciation of evidence is made only during the procedure of trial. As per the circumstances
and allegation raised by the petitioner it is evident that there are enough prima facie material
on record to frame charges against the respondent under section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the
scheduled tribe (prevention of atrocities) Act. 1989.

In Prathvi raj chauhan vs. U.O.I & ors. Writ petition [c] no. 1015 of 2018
Supreme court has observed that as a matter of fact, members of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes have suffered for long, hence, if we cannot provide them protective
discrimination beneficial to them, we cannot place them at all at a disadvantageous position
that may be causing injury to them by widening inequality and against the very spirit of our
Constitution. It would be against the basic human dignity to treat all of them as a liar or as a
crook person and cannot look at every complaint by such complainant with a doubt.
Eyewitnesses do not come up to speak in their favour. They hardly muster the courage to

18
speak against upper caste, that is why provisions have been made by way of amendment for
the protection of witnesses and rehabilitation of victims. All humans are equal including in
their failings. To treat SCs. and STs. as persons who are prone to lodge false reports under the
provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act for taking revenge or otherwise
as monetary benefits made available to them in the case of their being subjected to such
offence, would be against fundamental human equality. It cannot be presumed that a person of
such class would inflict injury upon himself and would lodge a false report only to secure
monetary benefits or to take revenge. If presumed so, it would mean adding insult to injury,
merely by the fact that person may misuse provisions cannot be a ground to treat class with
doubt. It is due to human failings, not due to the caste factor. The monetary benefits are
provided in the cases of an acid attack, sexual harassment of SC/ST women, rape, murder, etc.
In such cases, FIR is required to be registered promptly.
Even though the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 is very wide, it has
to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified
by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae
to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone, courts exist. This view
has been taken by the Hon’ble SC in many of its judgments including the recent Monica
Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh.
In a proceeding under section 482, the High Court will not enter into any finding of facts,
particularly when the matter has been concluded by concurrent finding of facts of two courts
below.

19
 PRAYER

In the light of the above stated facts, issues rose, authorities cited and arguments advanced, it
is most humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court that it may be pleased to direct:
1. To set aside the order passed by the High Court of Allahabad dated April 6, 2020 and
to restore the order passed by the trial court framing charges against the respondent.
2. To initiate the trial against the respondent and disposal of the case be done within a
reasonable time period.
3. The Government Authorities to act for the protection for the right of persons belonging
to scheduled tribes.
4. Pass any other that it may deem fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good
Conscience.
And for this, the Petitioner as in duty bound shall humbly pray.

Through Council(s) of the petitioner

20