Mere insult of SC/ST member not sufficient to constitute offence without caste-based intent
The Supreme Court on Friday held that simply insulting a member of a Scheduled Caste (SC) or Scheduled Tribe (ST) does not automatically constitute an offence under the 1989 SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The Supreme Court on Friday held that simply insulting a member of a Scheduled Caste (SC) or Scheduled Tribe (ST) does not automatically constitute an offence under the 1989 SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, underlining that the offence requires a specific intent to humiliate the individual based on their caste identity.
“All insults or intimidations to a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe will not amount to an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on the ground that the victim belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe,” said comprising justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.
It added that the offence under the 1989 Act is not established merely on the fact that the complainant is a member of a SC or ST, unless there is an intention to humiliate such a member because they belong to such community. “We say so because the object behind the enactment of the Act was to provide stringent provisions for punishment of offences which are targeted towards persons belonging to the SC/ST communities for the reason of their caste status,” it stated.
This ruling came as the court granted anticipatory bail to Shajan Skaria, editor of the Malayalam YouTube news channel “Marunadan Malayalee,” who faced charges for allegedly making derogatory remarks against Kunnathunad MLA PV Sreenijan. Skaria’s remarks were related to a news item he broadcast about alleged mismanagement at the Sports Hostel, which Sreenijan oversaw as chairman of the district sports council.
The Supreme Court on Friday set aside a June 2023 Kerala high court decision that denied Skaria anticipatory bail in connection with a case registered against him under the SC/ST Act. Senior counsel Sidharth Luthra and Gaurav Agrawal appeared for Skaria in the top court. To be sure, Section 18 of the SC/ST Act imposes a bar on courts granting pre-arrest bail to accused booked under the law, placing a substantial legal hurdle.
In its decision, the bench explained that the term “intent to humiliate,” as outlined in Section 3(1)(r) of the Act (which addresses intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of an SC/ST within public view), is closely tied to the caste identity of the person targeted. It pointed out that not every instance of intentional insult or intimidation against an SC/ST member would result in caste-based humiliation.
“The words ‘with intent to humiliate’ in Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 are inextricably linked to the caste identity of the person subjected to intentional insult or intimidation. It is only when the insult or intimidation is rooted in practices like untouchability or reinforces ideas of caste superiority and inferiority, such as the notions of ‘purity’ and ‘pollution,’ that it falls under the purview of the Act,” held the bench.
The court further held that simply knowing that the victim is a member of an SC or ST does not suffice to invoke charges under the law, saying it found nothing in the video transcript to suggest that the allegations were made solely because the complainant belonged to an SC community. It noted that the apparent intent was to malign or defame the MLA, but not on the basis of caste, for which Sreenijan was free to consider bringing a defamation case against Skaria.
Summing up, the court outlined the essential elements to establish an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act-- the accused must not be a member of an SC or ST; the accused must intentionally insult or intimidate a member of an SC or ST; the accused must do so with the intent to humiliate; and the act must occur in a place within public view.
Recommended Topics