Principal supervisor, two others accused of using casteist language, abusing assistant teacher, acquitted

A principal supervisor and two others booked for allegedly abusing an assistant teacher using casteist words in 2012 were acquitted by a special court,calling the evidence ‘vague’ and ‘ambiguous’.

The complaint was filed by a teacher who worked at the school from 2000 on the post of an assistant teacher, teaching Social Studies and English. She had complained that the accused women, from 2010 till the FIR was filed in 2013, repeatedly insulted her about her caste and used abusive, casteist and derogatory language to insult her.

She said that in December 2012 during a teacher’s meeting, the principal said that the complainant, who belonged to a Scheduled Caste, got her job only because of reservation and that she was not fit for the job. The complainant said that the supervisor had laughed at these comments. The principal again in March 2013 entered a classroom where the complainant was teaching and abused her, using casteist slurs.

In her FIR, the complainant had similarly given instances of abuse by the principal and had filed a complaint under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989. The complainant also alleged that two other staffers deputing at the school similarly humiliated her in front of other teachers.

The lawyer for the accused claimed that the school management had issued notices to the complainant as her conduct during her tenure was not ‘appropriate. He had also submitted that saying that someone got a job because of their caste cannot be considered an offence under the Act.

The court accepted this contention of the accused.”The said alleged derogatory words are also not specifically clearly coming under the purview of insult and humiliation, just with specific ill-intention to commit the impugned crime,” the court said.

The court said that while the complainant had said that she was facing the insults from 2010, she did not approach any authority till 2013. “It is required to be considered that the complainant has not raised any complaint/objections with any police authority, district magistrate or any one else. But she merely raised and directly raised the written complaint with the SC/ST commission. In that regard, she has not assigned any considerable explanation,” the court said in its order on May 8, raising the issue of delay in filing of the FIR. It also said that the complainant’s statement does not find corroboration in other evidence. It also said that the prosecution had not taken any steps to comply with verification of the caste certificate of the complainant.

Source