The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court has quashed an FIR filed against Jalgaon-based lawyer Kedar Kishor Bhusari, who used the terms ‘Bhangi’ and ‘Mehtar’ in a video highlighting unhygienic conditions and pig nuisance in a city locality. The Court held that the essential ingredients under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, were not satisfied.
A division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh delivered the verdict while allowing Bhusari’s petition to quash the FIR registered on 7 August 2023. The FIR was based on a complaint filed under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act, which penalise intentional insult or verbal abuse of an SC/ST person in public view.
Background:
Bhusari, 42, had recorded and shared a video in which he drew attention to the poor sanitation and pig infestation near a prominent square in the Baliram Peth locality of Jalgaon. He had sent the video to the Assistant Commissioner of the municipal corporation seeking remedial action. The FIR came after the video was forwarded on WhatsApp and received by the complainant, who claimed the terms used were offensive.
Court’s Analysis:
The High Court carefully analysed the statutory requirements under the Atrocities Act. It ruled that there was no direct insult or abuse directed toward any individual belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Tribe.
“These words, even if considered objectionable, were used to refer to a location and not to demean any individual or community,” the Court observed.
The Bench noted that under Section 3(1)(r), there must be proof of intentional insult or intimidation of an SC/ST person in public view. Similarly, Section 3(1)(s) requires that a caste-based verbal abuse be made in public view and directed at an individual from the SC/ST community. “Neither of these ingredients is satisfied,” the Court held.
Circular Has No Penal Effect:
The complainant relied on a Maharashtra government circular dated 16 April 2003, advising against the use of the word ‘Bhangi’ in official contexts, and recommending alternatives like ‘Rukhi’ or ‘Walmiki’. However, the Court clarified that such administrative circulars do not override constitutional or statutory language.
“The intention of the circular is limited and … does not intend to replace the words already there in the Constitution of India,” the bench stated.
The Court observed that the circular was merely advisory and intended for internal administrative communication, and could not be used as a legal basis to initiate criminal proceedings.
Intent Was Civic, Not Derogatory:
The Court found no evidence that Bhusari had targeted or insulted any person. Witnesses confirmed that the video came to their attention only after being forwarded. Bhusari had not disseminated the video beyond the municipal official.
Calling it “another classical example of WhatsApp forwards shared without application of mind or regard for consequences,” the Bench noted that the Assistant Commissioner forwarded the video to the Health Department group without reviewing it. Upon receiving objections, the official deleted it from the group.
Conclusion:
Holding that Bhusari had merely intended to highlight a civic issue and had not insulted or abused anyone, the Court quashed the FIR. It reaffirmed that criminal law should not be invoked in the absence of mens rea and concrete evidence of harm under the relevant statutory provisions.
