The Supreme Court of India, in a significant judgment, has clarified the legal requirements for invoking Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the SC-ST Act). The Court ruled that merely knowing the caste identity of a victim is not sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 3(1)(r) unless it is proven that the accused intentionally insulted or intimidated the victim with the specific intent to humiliate them because they belong to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
Background of the Case
The case, Shajan Skaria v. The State of Kerala & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 2622 of 2024, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8081 of 2023), involved the appellant, Shajan Skaria, who is the editor of an online news channel named โMarunandan Malayali.โ Skaria was accused of publishing a video on YouTube that allegedly insulted and defamed P.V. Sreenijan, a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) from Kerala, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste Pulaya community.
The video in question accused Sreenijan of engaging in various unlawful activities, including corruption, and insinuated that he had close ties with the underworld. The complainant, Sreenijan, contended that the video was deliberately made to humiliate him because of his caste identity, thereby violating Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(u) of the SC-ST Act.
Legal Issues Involved
The central issues before the Supreme Court were:
1. Whether Section 18 of the SC-ST Act imposes an absolute bar on the grant of anticipatory bail.
2. Whether the contents of the video published by the appellant disclosed a prima facie case under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC-ST Act.
3. Whether mere knowledge of the complainant’s caste identity by the appellant was sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(r).
Supreme Court’s Judgment
The judgment, delivered by Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, clarified several key aspects of the law:
1. Intent to Humiliate Required: The Court held that for an offence under Section 3(1)(r) to be made out, it is not enough for the accused to have knowledge of the victimโs caste. There must be an intention to humiliate the victim because of their caste. Justice Pardiwala observed, “An insult or intimidation must be targeted at the victim’s caste identity for the provision to apply. Mere knowledge of the caste does not suffice to invoke this section.”
2. No Absolute Bar on Anticipatory Bail: The Court also addressed the issue of anticipatory bail, reiterating that while Section 18 of the SC-ST Act bars anticipatory bail in cases under the Act, this bar does not apply if no prima facie case is made out against the accused.
3. Role of Courts in Protecting Rights: The Court emphasized the need for judicial scrutiny to ensure that the SC-ST Act is not misused. “While the Act is crucial for protecting the rights of the marginalized communities, it is equally important to ensure that the provisions are not invoked maliciously to settle personal scores,” the judgment stated.
Important Observations
The Court made several significant observations:
– On Prima Facie Case: The Court noted that a prima facie case under Section 3(1)(r) could not be established simply based on the allegations unless there is clear evidence of the accused’s intent to humiliate the victim because of their caste.
– On Section 18 of the SC-ST Act: The Court reiterated that the provisions of Section 18, which bar anticipatory bail, would not apply if the FIR or complaint does not make out a prima facie case.
Also Read
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 2622 of 2024 (SLP (Crl.) No. 8081 of 2023).
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra.
Lawyers: The appellant was represented by Senior Advocates Mr. Sidharth Luthra and Mr. Gaurav Agrawal. The complainant was represented by Mr. Haris Beeran, and the State was represented by Senior Advocate Mr. P.V. Dinesh.
