JUDGMENT Hon'ble MEHTA, J.—The instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner complainant against the order dated 16.4.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Rajsamand in Sessions case No.1/2013 titled as "State vs. Shabbir Hussain" whereby, the petitioner's application for amending his caste recorded by the trial court in his statement was rejected. 2. The petitioner is the complainant in the mater. His testimony was recorded by the learned Special Judge in the aforesaid case on 20.3.2013. The material portion of the complainant's testimony, which is the bone of the contention in the misc. petition is quoted hereinunder: ^^vt vnkyr ftyk ,oa ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k] eqdke jktleUn izdj.k la-1 lu~ 2013 ,l-lh-,l-Vh- ,DV jkT;@'kCcj gqlSu esa fnukad 20-3-2013 dks fy[kk x;kA eSa lkSxU/k ls dgrk gwa fd esjk uke vEck yky firk dk uke fxj/kkjh yky tkfr gfjtu mez 67 lky is'k & isa'kuj fuoklh dkadjksyh rg- o ftyk jktleanA** 3. On 10.4.2013 i.e. after 20 days of his statement being recorded, the complainant petitioner moved an application before the trial Court alleging that the trial Court committed a grave error and illegality in recording the complainant's caste as "Harijan". It was mentioned by the complainant in the application that his caste was recorded as Harijan in the statement, whereas he belongs to the Scheduled Caste and as such, his caste, which was mentioned in the statement as Harijan should be suitably amended and replaced by the words 'Scheduled Caste'. It was also mentioned in the application that either the complainant's caste was deliberately mentioned as 'Harijan' or was as a result of error. Along with the application, letter issued by the Additional Inspector General of Police, Human Rights, Jaipur dated 27.4.2012 was annexed. 4. The learned trial Judge observed that the complainant petitioner's caste was recorded in his statement as per the disclosure made by him on oath and thus, there was no cause or justification to alter the same. The application was accordingly rejected by the order dated 16.4.2013 against which the instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner complainant. 5. The learned trial Judge observed that the complainant petitioner's caste was recorded in his statement as per the disclosure made by him on oath and thus, there was no cause or justification to alter the same. The application was accordingly rejected by the order dated 16.4.2013 against which the instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner complainant. 5. Shri Pawan Rankawat learned counsel for the petitioner whilst relying upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arumugam Servai vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2011) 6 SCC 405 and the circular dated 22.11.2012 issued by the Government of India, Social Justice and Empowerment Department and the circular issued by the Additional Inspector General of Police, Human Rights, Rajasthan Jaipur dated 27.4.2012, contended that the Government of India and the State of Rajasthan have issued these circulars in compliance of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arumugam Servai's case and thus, they have to be complied with, in their letter and spirit. It was thus, prayed that the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge should be quashed and it be directed to amend and replace the caste in the aforequoted portion of his testimony by the words 'Scheduled Caste' (vuqlwfpr tkfr). 6. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the order impugned and the circulars referred to above as well as the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arumugam Servai's case. 7. This Court is called upon to consider as to whether the circulars issued by the Government of India prohibiting the use of the world 'Harijan' in the caste certificates and otherwise put any restraint on he court's powers to use and record the said word as and when warranted. For the sake of convenience, the relevant portions of the circulars issued by the Government of India and the Additional Inspector General of Police, Human Rights, Rajasthan Jaipur are quoted hereinbelow: Circular dated 22.11.2012: "2. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Social Justice and Empowerment in its Ninth Report presented to Lok Sabha and laid in Rajya Sabha on 19.08.2010, inter alia observed as follows: "..... the circular issued way back in 1982 is very old which has lost its sanctity and purpose leading to its non compliance.... The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Social Justice and Empowerment in its Ninth Report presented to Lok Sabha and laid in Rajya Sabha on 19.08.2010, inter alia observed as follows: "..... the circular issued way back in 1982 is very old which has lost its sanctity and purpose leading to its non compliance.... As such, there is widespread use of the word 'Harijan' across the country deprecating the status of the underprivileged sections of the society". Accordingly, the Committee has recommended that this Ministry issue fresh guidelines, instructions to States/U.Ts directing them to ensure the non-use of the word 'Harijan' not only caste certificates but also otherwise. 3. All the State Government/U.T. Administrations are again requested that for all office transactions, matters, dealings, certificates etc., the Constitutional terms 'Scheduled Caste' in English, and its - appropriate translation in other national languages should alone be used for denoting the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes included in the Orders issued by the President under Article 341 of the Constitution of India." "Circular dated 27.4.2012: bu lHkh vkns'kksa@funsZ'kksa ds ckotwn tulk/kkj.k] izfrf"Br ukxfjdksa] cqf)thfo;ksa] jktdfeZ;ksa o ehfM;k }kjk vutkus esa vlaoS/kkfud vkSj viekutud ekus tkus okys ^gfjtu* ,oa ^pekj* 'kCnksa dks lkoZtfud rkSj ij mi;ksx esa yk;k tkdj lHkh vkns'kksa@funsZ'kksa dks vuns[kk fd;k tk jgk gSA bl 'kCnksa dk mi;ksx ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; dh voekuuk ds lkFk lkFk] vuqlwfpr tkfr@vuqlwfpr tutkfr ¼vR;kpkj fuokj.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1989 dh /kkjk 3¼1½¼ x ½ ds vijk/k dh vksj vkdf"kZr djrk gSA vr% vkils vuqjks/k gS fd Hkkjr ljdkj] jktLFkku ljdkj ,oa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds vkns'kksa dh ikyuk esa bu 'kCnksa dk mi;ksx rqjar izHkko ls jksdk tkos ,oa bu vkns'kksa@funsZ'kksa dh tkudkjh vf/kd ls vf/kd vius v/khuLFk dks nh tkos] rkfd lEcfU/kr ds ukxfjd vf/kdkjksa dh j{kk dh tk lds ,oa vuqlwfpr tkfr@vuqlwfpr tutkfr vR;kpkj ds izdj.kksa esa deh ykbZ tk ldsA** 8. Considering the complexity of the issue and the intricate questions of law involved, this Court directed Dr. Sachin Acharya Advocate to stand as an Amicus Curiae to assist this Court in resolving the dispute. Dr. Sachin Acharya submitted detailed written submissions supported by numerous judgments. he submitted that the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court were misread and misinterpreted by the authorities concerned while issuing the circulars in question. Sachin Acharya Advocate to stand as an Amicus Curiae to assist this Court in resolving the dispute. Dr. Sachin Acharya submitted detailed written submissions supported by numerous judgments. he submitted that the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court were misread and misinterpreted by the authorities concerned while issuing the circulars in question. He urged that the Hon'ble Apex Court held the use of the words to be inappropriate only when the same was/were used with an intention to insult/derogate the victim. He submitted that Harijan was a term coined by Mahatma Gandhi and means the children of God. The female Bhakti writer Gangasati used the same word in the Bhakti movement in the period commencing from 4th century BC. It was also submitted that the word was as a matter of fact coined by Mahatma Gandhi in order to give a respectable place/designation to the people belonging to the lower strata of the society and thus, its usage at the appropriate place cannot be prohibited. he submitted that the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was enacted to prevent atrocities against the persons belonging to the Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes and was aimed to prevent and uproot the humiliation and harassment meted out to the downtrodeen sections of society and to ensure the upholding of their fundamental, socio-economic, cultural and political rights. It was submitted that the objective of the Act emphasizes the legislature's intention to deliver justice to these communities through proactive efforts and movements so as to enable them to effectively merge in the mainstream of the society with dignity and self-esteem and without fear of violence or suppression from the dominant castes. Learned Amicus Curiae in his compilation has placed on record the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Arumugam Servai (supra), Swaran Singh & Ors. vs. State through Standing Counsel & anr. reported in JT 2008(9) SC 60, Ispat Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai reported in (2006) 12 SCC 583 , DDA & Ors. s. Joginder S. Monga & Ors. reported in (2004) 2 SCC 297 , Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation vs. Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society, Jaipur & Ors. reported in (2013) 5 SCC 427 . reported in JT 2008(9) SC 60, Ispat Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai reported in (2006) 12 SCC 583 , DDA & Ors. s. Joginder S. Monga & Ors. reported in (2004) 2 SCC 297 , Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation vs. Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society, Jaipur & Ors. reported in (2013) 5 SCC 427 . The learned Amicus Curiae urged that in a case where a conflict arises between a statute and an executive instruction, indisputably, the former will prevail over the later. The thrust of the contention advanced by the learned Amicus Curaie was hat the prohibition contained in Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST Act was aimed at prosecuting the offender who indulged in the usage of the particular caste based words only when they are uttered with the intention to insult/derogate the victim. The learned Amicus Curiae submitted that mere mentioning of the word 'Harijan' without there being any intention to use it in a derogatory or insulting fashion would not be covered under the mischief of the Section and thus, the circulars issued by the Government of India and the State of Rajasthan prohibiting the use of the word Harijan cannot be held to be appropriate and in accordance with law. He thus, prayed that by making an appropriate interpretation, the circulars should be declared ultravires, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1989. 9. For an appropriate consideration of the arguments advanced at the bar, the relevant provision i.e. Sec. 3(1)(x) of the Act is quoted hereinbelow: "3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.—(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled for offences of Tribe,- (x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view; shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extent to five years and with fine." (emphasis supplied) 10. From a bare perusal of the above provision, it is evident that the prohibition provided in the section is on the intentional use of the caste based words aimed to insult or intimidate the person belonging to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe at any place within pubic view. From a bare perusal of the above provision, it is evident that the prohibition provided in the section is on the intentional use of the caste based words aimed to insult or intimidate the person belonging to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe at any place within pubic view. Thus, unless the caste based words are uttered with the intentional objective of insulting or humiliating the victim or are used in a derogatory fashion, such usage cannot be covered under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. 11. The prohibition mandated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arumugam Servai's case was only on the derogatory use of the words and not otherwise. The relevant portion of the Apex Court's judgment is Servai's case is quoted below: "10. In our opinion uses of the words 'pallan', 'pallapayal' 'parayan' or 'paraparayan' with intent to insult is highly objectionable and is also an offence under the SC/ST Act. It is just unacceptable in the modern age, just as the words 'Nigger' or 'Negro' are unacceptable for African-Americans today (even if they were acceptable 90 years ago). 17. Hence, we direct the administrative and police officials to take strong measures to prevent such atrocious acts. If any such incidents happen, apart from instituting criminal proceedings against those responsible for such atrocities, the State Government is directed to immediately suspend the District magistrate/Collector and SSP/SPs of the district as well as other officials concerned and charge-sheet them and proceed against them departmentally if they do not (1) prevent the incident if it has not already occurred but they have knowledge of it in advance, or (2) if it has occurred, they do not promptly apprehend the culprits and others involved and institute criminal proceedings against them, as in our opinion they will be deemed to be directly or indirectly accountable in this connection." 12. In view of the matter, the circulars issued by the Government of India and the State of Rajasthan prohibiting the use of the word 'Harijan' as being unconstitutional in all circumstances cannot be said to be in consonance with law. 13. Now reverting back to the facts in hand. In this case, the learned trial Judge recorded the complainant petitioner's caste as 'Harijan' whilst noting his name and other details in the statement. 13. Now reverting back to the facts in hand. In this case, the learned trial Judge recorded the complainant petitioner's caste as 'Harijan' whilst noting his name and other details in the statement. It goes without saying that what was recorded in the portion 'x' noted above was as per the facts stated by the complainant himself after being administered oath. It is mandatory that the statement of a witness has to be recorded in the exact language spoken by him. If the interpretation of Arumugam Servai's case as adopted by the Central Government and the State Government whilst issuing the abovementioned circulars is accepted then, it would lead to absurd situations. There would be cases wherein the complainant would depose about the abuses hurled to him by using case based words and the courts would hesitate to record the exact words spoken as it would run contrary to the circulars referred to above. 14. This obviously cannot be the correct interpretation of the judgment. As the learned Sessions Judge recorded the complainant's caste as disclosed by him after being administered oath, the complainant cannot be permitted to object to the use of the word 'Harijan' in describing his personal details while recording his statement. Thus, no justification is shown to direct the trial Court to alter the complainant's caste from 'Harijan' to 'Scheduled Caste'. 15. This Court records its appreciation for the able assistance provided to it by the learned Amicus Curiae Dr. Sachin Acharya Advocate in resolving the issue. 16. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the misc. petition is without any merit and is hereby rejected summarily. Stay petition is also rejected.