The Bombay High Court ruled that giving opinions on caste-based reservations through WhatsApp messages is not an offense under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). The Court clarified that freedom of speech, even when addressing contentious social issues, cannot be criminalized unless it is accompanied by clear evidence of intent to humiliate. Background of the Case The case was initiated when an upper caste individual shared messages in a WhatsApp group criticizing the caste-based reservations. A member of the Scheduled Caste, who was part of the group, filed a complaint stating that the messages were derogatory and formed an offense under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, which criminalize intentional insults or intimidation against Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe members in public. The trial court had taken cognizance of the complaint and, hence, the accused went to the Bombay High Court for relief. Court Observations The Bombay High Court considered the content of the messages, the context in which they were circulated, and the applicability of the SC/ST Act in the given circumstances. The Court observed that Freedom of Speech and Expression: The Court held that criticizing policies, such as caste-based reservations, is within the purview of free speech guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Such controversial opinions do not ipso facto amount to an offence, unless they are directed to castes with the aim of insulting or offending them. Requirement: The SC/ST Act requires the alleged insult or intimidation to take place in a public place or within public view. Since the messages were shared within a private WhatsApp group. Intent to Humiliate: There must be an intent to humiliate or intimidate a member belonging to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. There is no such intent found here in the messages. They were general expressions of opinion upon a policy matter. Judgment The Bombay High Court quashed the proceedings, holding that the accused's WhatsApp messages did not fulfill the requirements of an offense under the SC/ST Act. The Court reiterated that even though individuals need to exercise caution and sensitivity when discussing issues related to caste, mere expression of opinion without any intent cannot be brought within the precincts of criminal prosecution. Importance This judgment gives importance to protection of free speech without compromising it while balancing it in the need not to condone casteism. In other words, it warns that the SC/ST Act cannot be invoked ad hoc and that personal opinion, even when offensive, cannot be turned into crime unless it becomes an action with intent to cause or is seen from a public platform.