['Bhangi' Remark] "No Intention To Insult But Word Used In Derogatory Sense": P&H HC Grants Partial Relief To Yuvraj Singh

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Thursday granted partial relief to Cricketer Yuvraj Singh in a case registered against him for his alleged casteist remark 'Bhangi'. Partly allowing his quashing plea, the Court has quashed Sections 153-A and 153-B of the IPC in the FIR against him.

The Bench of Justice Amol Rattan Singh has however clarified that the case/probe against him for an offence under Section 3 (1)(u) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 shall proceed as per the law.

Background in brief

Essentially, the Bench was hearing Singh's plea seeking quashing of the FIR registered against him for his alleged casteist remarks made against another cricketer during an Instagram chat last year.

At the outset, the Court dealt with the argument raised by Singh's counsel that the District Police, Hansi was not having any jurisdiction to register the FIR as when the alleged casteist remark was made, Singh was in Mumbai and the person with whom he was holding the conversation (Rohit Sharma), was also not present at Hansi at that time.

The Court opined that the conversation between Singh and Sharma took place via a social media application (Instagram), and it could have been viewed anywhere across the world. The Court further said that the cause of action would arise at the place where it was viewed, it having been admitted that the utterance was actually made not by way of a private conversation between two persons but on a live chat on social media.

Further, the Court, while dealing with the contention of Singh's counsel that the word uttered would not amount to the commission of an offence punishable either under Section 153-A, or 153-B of the IPC, remarked thus:

"The petitioner having used the particular word (bhangi) in the context of a friend making his father dance, in my opinion an offence punishable under Section 153-A of the IPC is not made out, there not being any intention to promote any disharmony or feeling of enmity etc. between any two or more sections of society...In the opinion of this court, even a bare reading of any of the clauses in sub-section (1) of Section 153-B would not apply to the phrase or the word used by the petitioner in any manner, because very obviously it was not his intention to say either that any particular caste does not bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India or does not uphold the integrity of India; or that any member of such particular caste or class should be denied or deprived of his/her right as a citizen of India and further, neither did he make any assertion, council, plea or appeal concerning the obligation of any class or caste so as to cause disharmony or feelings of hatred or enmity or ill-will between any person." 

Now, regarding the offence under SC/ST Act, the Court noted that though Singh did not intentionally mean to cause any disrespect or harm or even humiliation to any class of people, especially with him not having uttered the word either in reference to a member of a Scheduled Caste nor did he address it specifically to any person who belongs to the Scheduled Caste

However, the Court did add that the word had been used as a pejorative, i.e. it had been used derisively, or was used in the context of a person not being held in good esteem. In this regard, the Court also took into account the affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police stating that the said word (bhangi) was used in Northern India normally in the context of a particular class/caste, in a derogatory sense.

"The petitioner having used the word (bhangi) to state that his friend did not do something good by making his father dance in a ceremony, seemingly at least, at this stage, the word was not used in any good sense but, as said, in a pejorative manner...if the effect of the word used is causing emotional hurt, humiliation etc. to any members of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, a particular caste name having been used in a derogatory manner, even if the intention of the petitioner was obviously not to actually so hurt any person, yet it would not entitle this court to quash the FIR on that ground," the Court further remarked.

Consequently, the petition was partly allowed to the extent that qua the offences punishable under Sections 153-A and 153-B of the IPC, the said offences are not found to be offences committed by the petitioner even prima facie, but as regards the commission of any offence punishable under the provisions of the Act of 1989, the petition was dismissed.

Senior Advocate Puneet Bali along with Advocates Uday Agnihotri, Sachin Jain, appeared for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Arjun Sheoran, Advocate, for respondent no.2

Case title - Yuvraj Singh v. State of Haryana and another

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 24

Click here To Read/Download Order