One Nation, Two Standards: The Inconsistent Enforcement of Abuse Laws

In contemporary India, the treatment of insults as criminal acts appears to hinge more on the identities of the individuals involved rather than the severity of the language used. This inconsistency fuels ongoing debates, particularly highlighted by incidents at Jantar Mantar, where protesters have directed abusive language at Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Conversely, individuals have faced arrest for seemingly innocuous remarks under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The Context of Political Dissent

Recently, protests at Jantar Mantar featured crude insults directed at PM Modi, which many commentators defended as a legitimate expression of dissent. They argue that such expressions are an essential aspect of democratic protest. Critics assert that public figures, especially those in high office, should be subject to scrutiny and criticism, including harsh words. The sentiment that “the Prime Minister is not above reproach” resonates with many, emphasizing that public office invites public scrutiny.

However, this raises a critical question: If insults aimed at a powerful leader do not warrant police intervention, why should similar language directed at an ordinary citizen—perhaps during a dispute over parking or property—result in criminal charges, particularly if the recipient belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe?

The Purpose of the SC/ST Act

The SC/ST Act was established to address genuine caste-based atrocities that traditional criminal laws failed to deter. There is widespread acknowledgment that caste violence is a significant issue, with Dalit and Adivasi communities historically facing discrimination and denial of basic rights. The intent behind the Act is clear and necessary. However, its application in situations unrelated to traditional caste atrocities—such as personal disputes—has raised concerns about misuse.

Instances have emerged where individuals invoke caste identity during conflicts, leading to arrests under the Act. The law’s historical difficulty in granting anticipatory bail has exacerbated this issue, prompting scrutiny from the judiciary.

Judicial Scrutiny and Legislative Response

In 2018, the Supreme Court addressed concerns regarding the misuse of the SC/ST Act in the case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs. State of Maharashtra. The Court noted that the Act was being exploited through false allegations and introduced safeguards, including a preliminary inquiry before arrest and the possibility of anticipatory bail in cases deemed prima facie false or malicious.

This ruling sparked significant protests from Dalit and tribal communities, who viewed it as a threat to hard-won protections. In response, Parliament quickly amended the Act, reinstating its original provisions. A subsequent ruling by a three-judge bench partially set aside the 2018 decision, emphasizing that the judiciary should refrain from encroaching on legislative territory and that false allegations may reflect investigative shortcomings rather than a systemic abuse of the law.

The Ongoing Debate

The back-and-forth between the judiciary and legislative bodies underscores that the issue of abuse laws is far from settled. It remains a contentious topic that warrants honest discussion without selective sympathy. Notably, commentators who advocate for leniency regarding insults directed at political figures often remain silent or defend the status quo when discussing reforms that could impact ordinary citizens facing criminal charges for less severe language.

If the principle is that no one should face criminal penalties solely for abusive speech, this standard must be uniformly applied. The argument for “free speech” cannot be selectively invoked based on the identity of the speaker or the target. The question remains: should all forms of abuse carry consequences, or should they largely go unpunished?

A Call for Consistency

A truly consistent and liberal stance would advocate for restraint on both sides. This includes decriminalizing most forms of abusive speech while ensuring robust legal action against genuine caste-based violence, discrimination, and atrocities. Such actions are fundamentally different from verbal disputes that invoke caste identity. Automatically jailing individuals for abusive language, regardless of context, does not serve justice; it undermines it.

A society that values free speech must defend it as a universal principle, rather than as a tool for political convenience. The need for a balanced approach is clear, one that recognizes the complexities of language and identity in a diverse society.

As reported by www.timesnownews.com.

Explore the latest digital editions of FAME Delivered in the Magazine section: https://famedelivered.com/magazine/

Published on 2026-08-03 15:37:00 • By FAME Delivered News Desk