The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that referring to a tribal individual as "an adivasi" does not amount to an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary, while deciding a criminal writ petition filed by Sunil Kumar, observed that for an offence under the SC/ST Act to be made out, the complainant must be a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe as recognized in the Constitution.

The Court emphasized that the term "adivasi" itself is not listed as a specific tribe in the constitutional schedule. Therefore, unless the individual belongs to a tribe officially recognized as a Scheduled Tribe, the provisions of the Act would not apply.

The case arose from an FIR registered at Dumka Police Station, where a woman belonging to a Scheduled Tribe accused Sunil Kumar, a public servant, of humiliating her. She alleged that when she approached Kumar to submit an application under the Right to Information Act, he refused to accept it, referred to her as an "insane adivasi," and forcibly drove her out of his office.

Kumar’s counsel, Chandana Kumari, argued that no specific caste or tribe was mentioned by Kumar, and merely using the term "adivasi" does not constitute an offence under the Act.

Accepting the argument, the Court noted that the continuation of proceedings against Kumar would amount to an abuse of the process of law. In its order dated April 8, the Court quashed the FIR and set aside all proceedings arising from it.