Intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe is required to constitute an offense under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act.

JUDGMENT :

V.G. ARUN, J.

1. The appellant is the first accused in Crime No. 899 of 2023 of Elamakkara Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(u) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015) and Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act.

2. The crime is registered on the allegation that the appellant had intentionally humiliated the second respondent by making false allegations and accusations through a video uploaded in the appellant's online news channel “Marunadan Malayali” on 24.05.2023. The appellant's application for pre-arrest bail was dismissed by the Special Court as per Annxure A4 order, finding that publication of the video containing derisive and derogatory comments, is sufficient to attract the alleged offences and hence, the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act would apply.

3. Senior Advocate P.Vijaya Bhanu appearing for the appellant put forth the following arguments:

The second respondent is an elected MLA and hence, his actions are open to criticism. In the video, the appellant had only criticized certain actions of the second respondent. Even if the second respondent feels that the allegations raised against him are false and defamatory, that is not sufficient to attract offences under the SC/ST (PoA) Act. Mere insult or humiliation is not sufficient to attract the offence under Section 3(1)(r). For that, the victim should have been insulted and humiliated by reason of that person being a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. In the video clip, there is absolutely no mention about the second respondent's caste. Further, there is nothing in the news to draw an inference that the allegations are intended to insult and humiliate the second respondent for reason of he being a member of the Scheduled Caste. To buttress this argument, reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another, (2020) 10 SCC 710, with particular emphasis on paragraph 11 to 13 therein:

“11. It may be stated that the charge-sheet filed is for an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The said section stands substituted by Act 1 of 2016 w.e.f. 26-1-2016. The substituted corresponding provision is Section 3(1)(r) which reads as under:

“3. (1)(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.”

12. The basic ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act can be classified as “(1) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and (2) in any place within public view.”

13. The offence under Section 3(1) (r) of the Act would indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. All insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of the Act is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied number of civil rights. Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of the society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment. The assertion of title over the land by either of the parties is not due to either the indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right to avail their remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, if the appellant or his family members have invoked jurisdiction of the civil court, or that Respondent 2 has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, then the parties are availing their remedies in accordance with the procedure established by law. Such action is not for the reason that Respondent 2 is a member of Scheduled Caste.”

Reliance is als