SC-ST Act applicable only if there is intention to humiliate: Supreme Court

New Delhi, August 23

Advertisement

An offence under the SC-ST Act is not established merely on the fact that the complainant is a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community unless there is an intention to humiliate, the Supreme Court said on Friday.

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra made the observation while granting anticipatory bail to YouTuber Shajan Skaria, who runs the “Marunadan Malayali” channel on the video-streaming platform.

Skaria had challenged the denial of anticipatory bail to him by the Kerala High Court in a criminal case lodged against him by MLA P V Sreenijin.

Sreenijin had got the FIR lodged for offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against Skaria, alleging that he had intentionally humiliated the lawmaker by making false allegations through a video uploaded on “Marunadan Malayali”.

The court said the mere fact that the person subjected to insult or intimidation belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe would not attract the offence under section 3(1)® of the Act unless it was the intention of the accused to subject the person concerned to caste-based humiliation.

“Thus, the dictum as laid aforesaid is that the offence under section 3(1)® of the Act, 1989 is not established merely on the fact that the complainant is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe unless there is an intention to humiliate such a member for the reason that he belongs to such a community.

“In other words, it is not the purport of the Act, 1989 that every act of intentional insult or intimidation meted by a person who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe to a person who belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe would attract section 3(1)® of the Act, 1989 merely because it is committed against a person who happens to be a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe,” the bench said.

The top court said not every intentional insult or intimidation of a member of a SC or ST community will result in a feeling of caste-based humiliation.

“It is only in those cases where the intentional insult or intimidation takes place either due to the prevailing practice of untouchability or to reinforce the historically-entrenched ideas like the superiority of the ‘upper castes’ over the ‘lower castes or untouchables’, the notions of ‘purity’ and ‘pollution’ etc. that it could be said to be an insult or intimidation of the type envisaged by the Act, 1989,” the bench said.

Referring to the case, the bench said having regard to the reprehensible conduct and the nature of the derogatory statements made, Skaria at best could be said to have prima facie committed the offence of defamation punishable under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

“If that be so, it is always open for the complainant to prosecute the appellant accordingly. However, the complainant could not have invoked the provisions of the Act, 1989 only on the premise that he is a member of a Scheduled Caste, more so, when a prima facie conjoint reading of the transcript of the video and the complaint fails to disclose that the actions of the appellant were impelled by the caste identity of the complainant,” the bench said.

The court said there is nothing to even “prima facie” indicate that Skaria, by releasing the video on YouTube, promoted or attempted to promote feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will against the members of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes.

“The video has nothing to do in general with the members of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. His target was just the complainant alone. The offence under section 3(1)(u) will come into play only when any person is trying to promote ill-feeling or enmity against the members of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes as a group and not as individuals,” the bench said.