The Calcutta High Court has ruled that caste-based abuse on social media can fall within the definition of public humiliation under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, directing a fresh investigation into a Facebook abuse complaint registered in Kolkata.
Justice Uday Kumar rejected a police final report that had described the case as yielding no leads and ordered that the investigation be conducted again with the assistance of cyber-forensic experts. The ruling came in a petition challenging an Alipore special court order that had accepted the police report.
The case relates to a complaint filed by RabiuI Islam Bulbul, who belongs to a Scheduled community, against two people identified as RabiuI Islam Bulbul and Sayan Dutta in the supplied report. The complaint alleged that offensive comments referring to the complainant’s caste, religion and family had been posted on Facebook. The complainant submitted screenshots of the posts while filing the complaint at Behala police station.
A case was registered in 2022 and later moved to the special court in Alipore. During the investigation, police recorded the complainant’s confidential statement, examined witnesses and reviewed Facebook links connected to the alleged posts. However, on January 20, 2023, police submitted a final report stating that no useful information had been found.
According to the report, police had sought user information from Facebook through the Kolkata Cyber Police station but did not receive the requested details from the platform. The complainant challenged the final report, but the Alipore special court dismissed the challenge and accepted the police conclusion. The lower court also referred to three earlier cases filed by the same complainant in which chargesheets had been submitted, reasoning that the police decision in the present case should be accepted.
The High Court disagreed with that approach. It held that the police conclusion that no information had been found was not acceptable and directed a fresh investigation involving cyber-forensic specialists. The order places the handling of digital evidence at the centre of the case, including the examination of social media links, screenshots and efforts to obtain user information from the platform.
The court’s observation concerns the meaning of “publicly humiliating” under the SC-ST Act. The judgment makes clear that public humiliation is not restricted to physical locations such as roads, markets or other open public spaces. Caste-based abuse posted on a social media platform may also be examined under the law when the facts satisfy the relevant statutory requirements.
The provisions cited in the report include Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act, which deal with intentional insult, intimidation or humiliation of a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in public view. The report states that offences under these provisions may attract imprisonment ranging from six months to five years and a fine. It also refers to Section 3(2)(v), under which an offence against a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe can carry a punishment of 10 years or more, including life imprisonment, depending on the circumstances and applicable legal findings.
The ruling does not determine the guilt of the people named in the complaint. Instead, it sets aside the police conclusion and requires the allegations and available digital evidence to be investigated again. The next step in the case is the fresh inquiry by cyber-forensic experts as directed by the High Court.
