Telling Someone That Respect For Dr.Ambedkar Has Reduced Because Of Followers Like Him Isn't Offence: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) quashed an FIR registered against a man over a phone call in which he told another person that respect for Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar has reduced because of followers like the latter.

The Court opined that asking a follower of Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar why s/he is 'using' the leader's name when they cannot follow his footsteps, and saying that because of such followers, his (Ambedkar's) name is defamed, and that because of such followers, the respect for him has 'reduced' does not constitute an offence.

A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay Deshmukh quashed the FIR lodged against one Devendra Patil, who was accused of calling a man, belonging to the Scheduled Caste (SC), over phone and allegedly making 'defamatory' statements against Ambedkar.

The FIR was registered for offences under Section 3(1)(u), (v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 298, 505, 505(2), 506, 507 of the Indian Penal Code

The judges noted that the accused only asked the informant as to why the latter 'used' Ambedkar's name when he was not behaving as per his teachings. This, the judges said cannot amount to an offence of insulting Ambedkar. 

"We find that the said conversation absolutely does not show any disrespect to Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar. Rather it is stated that the said caller was asking the informant, as to why he is using the name of Dr Ambedkar when he is not behaving on his footsteps. At one place, it is specifically uttered by the caller that because of them Baba (Dr Ambedkar) is defamed, he is respecting Dr. Ambedkar, but because of people like you the respect in him (Dr. Ambedkar) is reduced nowadays. This conversation in no way disrespect to Dr. Ambedkar or depict intention to disrespect or disturb harmony between two communities," the judges held. 

The bench noted that the informant Ravi Gaikwad, received this call only because he had made an 'objectionable' post on Facebook and even on WhatsApp about the 'Brahmin Community' after he witnessed a procession of Lord Parshuram's Jayanti on May 8, 2019. The said post, the judges noted, was against Brahmins.

The judges noted that the post by Gaikwad stated that the procession was to support 'terrorist' activities of the Brahmin community and such Brahmin persons if not stopped, then the security of the Indian Constitution would be in danger.

"Obviously, it can be clearly seen that he had made allegations against another community/caste. Then what was the reaction from other persons ought to have contemplated by him or apprehended before he could place the post. He cannot justify his post or act of posting by saying that it was his personal opinion. He himself has stated in FIR that he received good as well as bad comments. What were those bad comments has not been explained by him and it appears that he has taken action against the person who had called from a particular number," the judges said. 

Another important fact which the judges emphasised was that the phone conversation was a reaction to the provocative post made by the informant himself.

"Person from only one community then cannot have right to object, if he had done some provocative act. There has to be reciprocal respect for persons amongst all the communities and castes. That is what is soul of constitutional scheme. We have expressed earlier also that nowadays everybody is sensitive about his own caste and community which is without showing or reciprocal respect to the other community or caste," the bench observed. 

"If we take the said conversation as it is, then even the informant has disrespected or made provocative statements which are against the another community. Therefore, on the same piece of evidence he cannot say that only the applicant has committed the offence", the judges opined.

"If neither community and persons in the community/caste are showing restraint and there are no efforts in bringing harmony, such incidences would increase in future. It is not necessary that each and every bad comment/post or speech should be reacted. There are sophisticated ways and means to show dissent to a person who give such provocative post," the bench emphasised. 

Telephonic Conversations Not Covered Under Section 505 Of IPC

The bench noted from the facts of the case that the applicant Patil was also booked for offence under section 505 along with other provisions like 298 of the Indian Penal Code and also the stringent Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The judges noted that section 505 penalises creating ill-will and hatred between different groups on the grounds of religion, caste race etc.

"Here, the conversation is on telephone. Though it is stated to have been made by a person; yet, except the informant nobody else had heard it. Therefore, the conversation qua informant, which cannot be covered under the ingredients of Section 505 or 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code," the bench held. 

With these observations, the bench quashed the FIR lodged against Patil.

Appearance: 

Advocates SS Varma and SS Ladda appeared for the Applicant.

Additional Public Prosecutor SA Gaikwad represented the State.

Advocate PB Waghmare represented the Complainant. 

Case Title: Devendra Patil vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Application 4026 of 2019)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 83

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment