The Supreme Court said that not every deliberate insult or intimidation against a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe leads to caste-based humiliation. (data map)
The court said that the mere fact that the person subjected to insult or intimidation belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe does not amount to an offense under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act unless the accused intended that the person should be insulted or intimidated. humiliating person
The Supreme Court on Friday said an offense under the Scheduled Castes Act is established not just because the complainant is a member of a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe community, unless there is an intention to humiliate.
Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra made the remarks while granting bail to YouTuber Shajan Skaria, who runs the 'Marunadan Maleali' channel on the video streaming platform.
Skaria had challenged the Kerala High Court's refusal to grant him anticipatory bail in the criminal case filed against him by MLA PV Sreenijin.
Srinikin filed a complaint against Scalia against the FBI for violating the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, claiming that he deliberately humiliated the caste by making false accusations through a video uploaded on “Marunadan Malaysiaali” a legislator.
The court said that the mere fact that the person subjected to insult or intimidation belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe does not amount to an offense under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act unless the accused intended that the person should be insulted or intimidated. Caste humiliates people.
“The above assertion, therefore, is that the offense under Section 3(1)(r) of the 1989 Act cannot be established solely 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 because He belongs to such a community.
“In other words, the purport of the 1989 Act is not to provide for every intentional act of insult or intimidation by a non-member of a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe against a member of a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. Section 3(1) (r) of the 1989 Act A case is filed against a tribal simply because it is against a person who happens to be a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,” the bench said.
The Supreme Court said that not every deliberate insult or intimidation against a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe leads to a sense of caste-based humiliation.
“Only in cases of intentional insult or intimidation, either due to prevailing untouchability practices or to reinforce historically entrenched ideas such as the superiority of “upper castes” over “lower castes or untouchables”, “purity” and ‘pollution’, etc., can be said to be an insult or intimidation of the kind contemplated by the 1989 Act,” the bench said.
Talking about the case, the bench said that considering the reprehensible conduct and the nature of the derogatory remarks made, prima facie, Scalia can at best be said to have committed an offense under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) Punishable defamation.
“If so, the complainant can always prosecute the complainant accordingly. However, the complainant cannot invoke the provisions of the 1989 Act merely on the premise that the complainant is a member of the Scheduled Castes, more so when the transcript of the video and the complaint A preliminary combined reading failed to disclose that the judge said the appellant's actions were motivated by his caste identity.
The court said there was nothing even “on the face of it” to suggest that Scalia promoted or attempted to promote feelings of enmity, hatred or malice against members of scheduled castes or scheduled tribes by posting the video on YouTube.
“This video has nothing to do with members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. His target is the complainant alone. It is only when anyone tries to incite dissatisfaction or enmity against members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes as a group and not as individuals, Section 1 An offense under section 3(1)(u) will only have effect.
