Kerala High Court Expresses Disinclination To Grant Anticipatory Bail To Mohiniyattam Performer Booked For Casteist Remarks Against Fellow Artist

Justice K Babu today orally said, “I will not grant anticipatory bail, I will direct her to appear before the jurisdictional Court and let the Court decide.”

The court orally stated that since the appellant is a lady, it would not direct her to appear before the investigating officer.

The allegation was that Sathyabhama made certain comments on the appearance and skin tone of Ramakrishnan, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste community, without explicitly taking his name in an interview given to a channel that went viral on YouTube.

A case was registered against her by Ramakrishnan under Sections 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act at the Cantonment Police Station in Thiruvananthapuram district.

Section 3 provides punishment for atrocities. Section (1)(r) reads thus: “intentionally insults or intimidate or humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.”

The counsel for Sathyabhama contended that Section 3(1)(r) would not be attracted to the facts of the present case since no name or caste was mentioned. It was stated that individuals have different perceptions and she was stating only her opinion about dance form and that Section 3(1)(r) should not be misused. It was stated that Sathyabhama did not say anything in public view but was merely having a chit-chat with media persons within the four walls of her house and it was their duty to edit or censor the content before publishing it. The Counsel further argued that terms like crow, koel are generally used to express sounds and colors but that by itself would not create humiliation to a particular community.

The Counsel for the complainant argued that Sathybhama made the allegations with complete awareness that he belonged to Scheduled Caste Community. It was stated that her intention was to insult and humiliate the complainant. It was also argued that interview was given with the knowledge that it would be published digitally. It was further stated that Section 3 (1)(r) does not mandate that name or caste should be explicitly stated.

The Court stated that the terms used by Sathyabhama would evidently infer that she wanted to insult the complainant for belonging to a particular community. It stated that comments regarding the skin colour of a person was indirectly a reference to the community that he belonged to.

The Court has reserved the matter for orders tomorrow.

The plea has been moved by Advocates Biju Antony Aloor, K P Prasanth, Haseeb Hassan M, Krishnasankar D, Asokan K.V, Rebin Vincent Gralan

Case Title: Sathybhama v State of Kerala

Case Number: Crl A 733/2024