K. Crenshaw has been credited for coining the term ‘intersectionality’.

“Discrimination, like traffic through an intersection, may flow in one direction, and it may flow in another. If an accident happens in an intersection, it can be caused by cars traveling from any number of directions and, sometimes, from all of them. Similarly, if a Black woman is harmed because she is in the intersection, her injury could result from sex discrimination or race discrimination.”

The model of ‘intersectionality’ was initially developed to highlight the experiences of African-American women. There is a growing recognition, an intersectional lens is useful for addressing the specific set of lived experiences of those individuals who have faced violence and discrimination on multiple grounds. An intersectional analysis requires us to consider the distinct experience of a sub-set of women who exist at an intersection of varied identities.

The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 amended Section 3(2)(v) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The amendment would not be applicable to the case at hand.

The key words in Section 3(2)(v) are, as it stood at the material time, “on the ground that such person is a member of a SC or ST.” The expression “on the ground” means “for the reason” or “on the basis of”. The contours of the terms “on the ground of” have been explicated in Khuman Singh v. State of MP, Criminal Appeal No. 1283 of 2019 and Ashrafi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 1 SCC 742 to mean, “only on the ground that the victim was a member of the Scheduled Caste.” To read the provision in that manner will dilute a statutory provision which is meant to safeguard the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes against acts of violence which pose a threat to their dignity. A true reading of Section 3(2)(v), as it stood earlier, would entail, conviction can be sustained as long as caste identity is one of the grounds for the occurrence of the offence.

The evidence does not establish the offence. Reference to Larger Bench is unnecessary. We keep the debate alive.

– Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Patan Jamal Vali v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [Criminal Appeal No. 452 of 2021].

Patan Jamal Vali v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2021) 16 SCC 225 noticed amendment made to The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and held, post amendment, threshold of proving crime was committed on basis of caste identity was decreased and mere knowledge of caste of victim was sufficient to sustain conviction.

– Hon’ble Justice K.V. Viswanathan, Shivkumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, [Criminal Appeal No. 4502 of 2025] decided on 14.10.2025.

_____

Court took notice, The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was being misused to some extent for purposes not intended by legislation [Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 6 SCC 454]. It is not in dispute, the bar of Section 18-A in Act of 1989 had been enacted because of Subhash Kashinath Mahajan.

Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 72 makes it abundantly clear, if a prima facie case is not made out, the bar created by Sections 18 and 18-A(i) shall not apply. Courts should not shy away from conducting a preliminary inquiry to determine if narration of facts in complaint/FIR discloses essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under Act of 1989. In our opinion, there is nothing to even prima facie indicate, Shajan promoted or attempted to promote feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will against members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes.

– Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala, [Criminal Appeal No. 2622 of 2024] decided on 23.08.2024.

_____

Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2249 elaborated law in respect of grant of anticipatory bail, then highlighted and recognised the bar created under Section 18 of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to observe, only in cases where offence could not be said to have been made out on a very prima facie consideration, Court may exercise discretion to grant pre-arrest bail.

In reaching a conclusion as to whether a prima facie offence is made out or not, it would not be permissible for Court to travel into evidentiary realm or to consider other materials, nor Court could advert to conduct a mini trial.

– Hon’ble Justice N.V. Anjaria, Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain, [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8169 of 2025] decided on 01.09.2025.