ARUMUGAM SERVAIversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

                        [2011] 5 S.C.R. 488


A                      ARUMUGAM SERVAI
                                 v.
                     STATE OF TAMIL NADU
                (Criminal Appeal No. 958 of 2011)
                          APRIL 19, 2011
B
    [MARKANDEY KATJU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]

       Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
  Atrocities) Act, 1989 - s.3(1)(x) - Complainants-PWs 1 and
C 2 belonged to "Pallan,. caste, a Scheduled Caste in Tamil
  Nadu - Altercation between them and accused-appellant -
  Appellant insulted PW1 by calling him a "Pal/apayal" and
  thereafter the appellants caused injuries to both PW1 and
  PW2 - Conviction of appellants by courts below- Justification
o of - Held: Justified - The word 'pal/an' no doubt denotes a
  specific caste, but it is also a word used in a derogatory sense
  to insult someone - Even calling a person a 'pal/an', if used
  with intent to insult a member of the Scheduled Caste, is, an
  offence uls.3(1 )(x) - To call a person as a 'pallapaya/' in
E Tamilnadu is even more insulting, and hence is even more
  an offence - 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 -
  Uses of the words 'pal/an', 'pallapayal' 'parayan' or
F 'paraparayan' with intent to insult is highly objectionable and
  also an offence under the SC/ST Act - It is just unacceptable
  in the modem age - The appellants behaved like uncivilized
  savages, and hence deserve no mercy.

       Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes - Prevention
G of atrocities - Two tumbler system prevalent in State of Tamil
  Nadu - Separate tumblers for serving tea or other drinks to
  Scheduled Caste persons and non-Scheduled Caste persons
  in tea shops and restaurants - Held: This is highly
  objectionable, and is an offence under the SC/ST Act, and
H                              488
   ARUMUGAM SERVAI v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU                   489


hence those practicing it must be criminally proceeded              A
against and given harsh punishment if found guilty.

    Honour Killings - 'Khap Panchayats' (known as Katta
Panchayats in Tamt1 Nadu) - Institutionalized crime on boys
and girls of different castes and religion, who wish to get         B
married or have been married, and interference with the
personal lives of people - Held: This is wholly illegal and has
to be ruthlessly stamped out - There is nothing honourable
in honour killing or other atrocities and, in fact, it is nothing
but barbaric and shameful murder - Hence, administrative            C
and police officials directed to take strong measures to
prevent such atrocious acts.

     Ac.cording to the prosecution, there was an
altercation between the appellants and complainants-
PW1 and PW2 (who belonged to a Scheduled Caste in                   D
the State of Tamil Nadu) whereafter appellant insulted
PW1 by calling him a pallapayal and that he ate deadly
cow beef and that then the accused-appellants attacked
PW1 and PW2 causing them injuries. The appellants were
convicted by the courts below under Section 3(1)(x) of the          E
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989. Hence the present appeals.

     Dismissing the appeals, the Court

     HELD: 1. Both the Courts below believed the                    F
prosecution case, and this Court sees no reason to
differ. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of
the witnesses. [Para 6) [494-D]

     2.1. The accused belong to the 'servai' caste whic:;h          G
is a backward caste, whereas the complainants belong'
to the 'pallan' caste which is a Scheduled Caste in Tamil
Nadu. 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'
                                                                    H
    490     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011) 5 S.C.R.


A 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, an offence under Section
  3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
B (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. To call a person as a
  'pallapayal' in Tamilnadu is even more insulting, and
  hence is even more an offence. Similarly, in Tamilnadu
  there is a caste called 'parayan' but the word 'parayan'
  is also used in a derogatory sense.· The word
c 'paraparayan' is even more derogatory. [Paras 7, 8 and
  9] [494-E-H; 495-A]

       2.2. 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.
D 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). In the present case, it is obvious that the word
  'pallapayal' was used by accused No. 1 to insult
E PW1. Hence, it was clearly an offence under the SC/ST
  Act. The appellants in the present case behaved like
  uncivilized savages, and hence deserve no mercy. [Paras
  10, 11, 18] [495-8-C; 499-H]

F       Swaran Singh and Ors. vs. State thr' Standing Counsel
    and Anr. (2008) 12 SCR 132 - referred to.

       3. In the modern age nobody's feelings 1
                                                    should be
  hurt. In particular in a country like lnd ia with so much
  diversity one must take care not to insult anyone's
G feelings on account of his caste, religion, tribe, language,
  etc. 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

H
  ARUMUGAM SERVAI v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU               491


of the main causes holding up the country's progress.         A
[Paras 1, 12] [495-E-F; 499-G-H]
    4. There is the highly objectionable two tumbler
system prevalent in many parts of Tamilnadu. This
system is that in many tea shops and restaurants there        B
are separate tumblers for serving tea or other drinks to
Scheduled Caste persons and non-Scheduled Caste
persons. 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     C
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.
[Para 14] [496-G-H; 497-A-B]                                  D
     5. 'Khap Panchayats' (known as katta panchayats in
Tamil Nadu) 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       E
married or have been married, or interfere with the
personal lives of people. This is wholly illegal and has to
be ruthlessly stamped out. There is nothing honourable
in honour killing or other atrocities and, in fact, it is
nothing but barbaric and shameful murder. Other               F
atrocities in respect of personal lives of people committed
by brutal, feudal minded persons deserve harsh
punishment. Only in this way such acts of barbarism
and feudal mentality can be stamped out. Moreover,
these acts take the law into their own hands, and amount      G
to kangaroo courts, which are wholly illegal. [Para 16]
[499-B-D]
     Lata Singh vs. State of U.P. and Anr. (2006) 5 SCC 475
- referred to.
                                                              H
    492      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2011] 5 S.C.R.


A      6. Hence, the administrative and police officials are
  directed 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
B 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
C 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 they will be deemed to be directly or indirectly
  accountable in this connection. (Para 17] [499-E-G]

D      8. 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
E 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. [Para 19] [500-A-B]
                       Case Law Reference:
F         (2008) 12 SCR 132     Referred to         Para ·13
          (2006) 5 sec 475      Referred to         Para 15
        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
    No. 958 of 2011.
G
        From the Judgment and Order dated 25.01.2008 of the
    High Court of Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 536 of 2001.



H
  ARUMUGAM SERVAI v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU                     493


                                WITH                                 A

Criminal Appeal No. 959 of 2011.

     C.S. Rajan, S.D. Dwarakanath (for Dr. Kailash Chand)
P.V. Yogeswaran and S. Thananjayan for the appearing
                                                                     B
parties.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivred by

     MARKANDEY KAT JU, J.

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

                                - Firaq Gorakhpuri

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created   D
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                     E
     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
                                                                     F
main causes holding up the country's progress.

     2. Leave granted.

     3. These appeals have been filed against the common             G
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.
                                                                     H
    494       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 5 S.C.R.


A       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 PW'I
B 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.
c        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.

D        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.

E         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
F uust 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
G 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'
H
  ARUMUGAM SERVA! v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU                      495
          [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J.]
but the word 'parayan' is also used in a derogatory sense. The        A
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
                                                                      B
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                      C
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     D
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.
                                                                      E
    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 'Cha.mar' is ofteh used by people            F
     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              G
     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
                                                                      H
                                                                      ..
    496       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011) 5 S.C.R.


A         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
B         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
c         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
D         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
E         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
F         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".
G        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
H
   ARUMUGAM SERVA! v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU                     497'
           [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]
 opinion, this is highly objectionable, and is an offence under the   A
  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   B
  not launch criminal proceedings against the culprits.

     15. In Lata Singh vs. State of UP. & 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        C
     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             D
     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         E
     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
                                                                      F
     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               G
     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       H
    498       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2011) 5 S.C.R.


A         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
B
          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
c         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 fr:ee and
          democratic country, and once a person becomes major     a
          he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes. If the parents
D         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 con:imit or instigate acts of
          violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes
E         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
F         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
G         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
H
   ARUMUGAM SERVAI v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU                     499
           [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]
     of murder committed by brutal, feudal minded persons who        A
     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
                                                                      8
 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. Vl/e 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 C
 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. D
 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 E
 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 F
 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 G
 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.
                                                                     H
    500      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2011) 5 S.C.R.


A      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.
B 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.

    B.B.B.                                      Appeals dismissed.