‘Adarsh Sir’ cannot be a caste slur even if said sarcastically: HC
Times of India | 12 February 2026
Kolkata: Calling someone ‘Adarsha Sir', even if sarcastically, is not an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, the Calcutta High Court held on Wednesday, quashing a complaint against Sanskrit College and University's former HoD.
"Even if it is accepted for a moment that he was called ‘Adarsha Sir', it can in no way be said to be derogatory towards a member of the Scheduled community. The word ‘adarsha' means ideal and ‘sir' is a term of respect," the single judge held.
Former HoD of Sanskrit, Moumita Bhattacharya, approached the bench of Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) to quash the 2021 case filed at the Amherst Street police station under sections of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.
On Dec 4, 2021, a Sanskrit assistant professor filed a complaint against Bhattacharya, alleging that she humiliated him for belonging to a Scheduled Caste. A charge sheet was submitted against Bhattacharya on April 10, 2022, under provisions of the ST/SC Act.
The instances of humiliation mentioned in the FIR included the HoD taking decisions without his consent, not providing resolutions of HoD meetings, stopping his undergraduate classes for the 2021 semester, preventing him from examination and evaluation duty for the 2020 UG third semester, and making a few students lodge complaints against him to the authorities. Apart from this, he alleged that during an online meeting, Bhattacharya humiliated him by using abusive, offensive, inappropriate, and unparliamentary language.
In his statement before the magistrate, he said that in 2019, Bhattacharya humiliated and abused him by calling him "lower caste" and refusing him the desired recommendation. Justice Chatterjee (Das) noted that he never lodged a complaint about this incident.
Citing her qualifications, Bhattacharya's advocate argued that she was falsely implicated in this case out of grudge and ill motive. It was argued that, to prove the offences, it must be clearly established that the person was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with an intent to humiliate in a place within public view.
"The grievance ventilated by the complainant against Bhattacharya in the complaint on Dec 4, 2021, is of atrocity, misbehaviour, and ill motivation against him as he belonged to the Scheduled Caste community… Professional jealousy is the root cause, as reflected from the content of the complaint, as it is canvassed that she did not tolerate the progress of a professor from the Scheduled Caste community," the judge noted.
Citing SC orders, Justice Chatterjee (Das) reiterated: "All insults or intimidation to a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe will not amount to an offence under the Act, 1989 unless such insult or intimidation is on the ground that the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe."