Kerala High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail To Mohiniyattam Performer Booked For Making Alleged Casteist Remarks Against Fellow Artist

Justice K Babu observed that the prosecution has prima facie established that Sathyabhama intentionally made such remarks to humiliate Ramakrishnan for belonging to the Scheduled Caste Community.

“The prosecution could prima facie establish that the appellant intentionally insulted the de facto complainant with intent to humiliate him in public view on account of his belonging to Scheduled Caste Community. Therefore, the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act is applicable to the present facts, and hence the application seeking anticipatory bail is not maintainable. Resultantly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.”

The allegation was that Sathyabhama intentionally 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 'DNA You Tube' Channel.

A crime was registered against Sathyabhama under Sections 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST (POA) Act at the Cantonment Police Station in Thiruvananthapuram district by Ramakrishnan. Her anticipatory bail was rejected by the Special Court for the trial of Offences under SC/ST(POA) Act, Nedumangad.

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.” On analyzing the provision, the Court held that there are two basic ingredients. Firstly, intentionally insults or intimidates with the intention to humiliate a member of the SC/ST community. Secondly, it should be within public view.

The Court stated that Sathyabhama was aware that the de facto complainant belonged to the SC community. The Court stated that the remarks made by Sathyabhama is sufficient for the audience to infer that she spoke about the de facto complainant itself.

It stated that Sathyabhama made humiliatory remarks that could cause extreme humiliation to the de facto complainant. It said, “The appellant states that the de facto complainant is a member of a community of beggars (alavalathi koottam). The Special Court observed that remarks regarding the skin colour of the de facto complainant is on account of his belonging to Scheduled Caste community.”, added the Court.

The Court stated that the interview given to the DNA news channel extended up to 30.59 minutes and was uploaded on You Tube and aired on online channels. It stated that Sathyabhama was aware that the interview would be aired on online channels and that it would be seen and heard by the public.

The Court further stated that the SC/ST (POA) Act was enacted to uphold constitutionally guaranteed rights to all individuals, particularly aiming to bridge the disparities faced by those subjected to ostracism and discrimination. It stated that achieving a casteless society would remain elusive unless the provisions of the SC/ST Act were enforced strictly. The Court stated that exclusion based on caste identity should not be allowed to prevail in our democracy and that citizens must strive to achieve fraternity amongst all sections of society.

Elaborating on the objective of the SC/ST (POA) Act, the Court stated thus:

“ It is to address problems of a segmented society, that express provisions of the Constitution which give effect to the idea of fraternity, or bandhutva referred to in the Preamble, and statutes like the Act, have been framed. These underline the social — rather collective resolve — of ensuring that all humans are treated as humans, that their innate genius is allowed outlets through equal opportunities and each of them is fearless in the pursuit of her or his dreams. The question which each of us has to address, in everyday life, is can the prevailing situation of exclusion based on caste identity be allowed to persist in a democracy which is committed to equality and the rule of law? If so, till when? And, most importantly, what each one of us can do to foster this feeling of fraternity amongst all sections of the community without reducing the concept (of fraternity) to a ritualistic formality, a tacit acknowledgment, of the “otherness” of each one's identity.”

Accordingly, the Court rejected the anticipatory bail application and directed Sathyabhama to surrender before the jurisdictional court within a period of one week.

Counsel for Appellant: Advocates Biju Antony Aloor, K.P.Prasanth, Haseeb Hassan.M, Krishnasankar D., Asokan K.V., Rebin Vincent Gralan

Counsel for Respondents: Advocate C K Radhakrishnan, Public Prosecutor G Sudheer

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 346

Case Title: Sathyabhama v State of Kerala

Case Number: CRL.A NO. 733 OF 2024

Click here to read/download Order