Mere Insult To SC/ST Member Not Offence Under SC/ST Act Unless Intent Was To Humiliate Based On Caste Identity : Supreme Court

“all insults or intimidations to a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe will not amount to an offence under the Act, 1989 unless such insult or intimidation is on the ground that the victim belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe”, the Court held.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra said this while granting anticipatory bail to the editor of the Malayalam YouTube News Channel 'Marunadan Malayalee' Shajan Skaria in a criminal case for making alleged derogatory remarks against MLA PV Sreenijin.

Skaria had telecast a news item regarding the alleged maladministration of the Sports Hostel by Sreenijin in his capacity as the Chairman, District Sports Council. The Court today set aside the Kerala High Court's judgment delivered in June 2023 refusing him anticipatory bail.

The Court explained that the phrase “intent to humiliate” under Section 3(1)(r) (intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of a SC/ST within public view is closely linked to the caste identity of the person subjected to intentional insult or intimidation. Not every intentional insult or intimidation of a member of an SC/ST community will result in a feeling of caste-based humiliation, the Court observed.

“The words “with intent to humiliate” as they appear in the text of Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 are inextricably linked to the caste identity of the person who is subjected to intentional insult or intimidation. Not every intentional insult or intimidation of a member of a SC/ST community will result into a feeling of caste-based humiliation. It is only in those cases where the intentional insult or intimidation takes place either due to the prevailing practice of untouchability or to reinforce the historically entrenched ideas like the superiority of the “upper castes” over the “lower castes/untouchables”, the notions of 'purity' and 'pollution', etc. that it could be said to be an insult or intimidation of the type envisaged by the Act, 1989.”

The Court held that mere knowledge of the fact that the victim is a member of an SC or ST is not sufficient to attract Section 3(1)(r) of the Act.

The Court examined whether the averments in the FIR or complaint in question, disclosed the commission of any offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act. Both the complainant and the State argued that the appellant's alleged rash and derogatory statements could be considered as prima facie committing offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(u) of the Act.

There was nothing in the transcript of the uploaded video to indicate even prima facie that the allegations were made solely because the complainant belonged to a SC, the Court observed, adding that it appeared that the appellant was at inimical terms with the complainant. The intention seemed to be to malign or defame the complainant but not because the complainant belonged to a SC, the Court opined.

The basic ingredients to establish an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act are that the accused must not be a member of a SC or ST; the accused must intentionally insult or intimidate a member of a SC or ST; the accused must do so with the intent to humiliate; and the accused must do so in any place within public view.

The Court pointed out that the object behind the Act is to provide stringent provisions for punishment of offences targeted towards persons belonging to the SC/ST communities for the reason of their caste status.

“it is not the purport of the Act, 1989 that every act of intentional insult or intimidation meted by a person who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe to a person who belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe would attract Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 merely because it is committed against a person who happens to be a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. On the contrary, Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 is attracted where the reason for the intentional insult or intimidation is that the person who is subjected to it belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe”, the Court emphasised.

The Court observed that in the present case, the appellant allegedly published a YouTube video containing reckless statements against the complainant. The Court noted that it was not required to assess the truthfulness of the allegations in the video but only to determine whether, even if all the statements were believed to be true, any offence under Section 3(1)(r) could be said to have been prima facie committed.

The Court explained that not all insults or intimidations directed at a member of an SC or ST would amount to an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidations are motivated by the victim's caste.

The Court relied on various judgments to say that the offence under Section 3(1)(r) is not established merely because the complainant is a member of a SC or ST. Instead, there must be an intention to humiliate the person because they belong to such a community.

“the expression “intent to humiliate” as it appears in Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 must necessarily be construed in the larger context in which the concept of humiliation of the marginalised groups has been understood by various scholars. It is not ordinary insult or intimidation which would amount to 'humiliation' that is sought to be made punishable under the Act, 1989”, the Court stated.

The Court held that only in cases where the intentional insult or intimidation occurs due to entrenched social practices, like untouchability or notions of caste superiority, can it be said to constitute the type of insult or intimidation envisioned by the Act.

Case no. – Crl.A. No. 002622/2024

Case Title: Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 601