Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(SC) 7968

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. B. Pardiwala, J
Shajan Skaria – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2622 OF 2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sidharth Luthra, Gaurav Agrawal
For the Respondents: Haris Beeran, P.V. Dinesh

The statutory bar on anticipatory bail for offences under the Act is not absolute. Courts must verify if a prima facie case exists. Insults or intimidation against a member of a scheduled community only constitute an offence if the motivation is rooted in the victim's caste identity.

Headnote:(A) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(u) - Section 18, 18-A - Anticipatory bail - Bar under Section 18 - Applicability - Held, bar under Section 18 on grant of anticipatory bail is not absolute - Such bar applies only when complaint discloses a prima facie case of offence under the Act - If complaint fails to disclose necessary ingredients of the offence on prima facie reading, Section 438 CrPC can be invoked. (Paras 35, 36, 48, 51)

(B) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(r) - Intentional insult or intimidation - Essential ingredients - Mere fact that victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste is insufficient - Offence is made out only when insult or intimidation is on the ground that the victim belongs to a particular community or with an intent to humiliate for the reason of caste identity - Distinction to be drawn between general defamation and caste-based atrocity. (Paras 58, 60, 74)

(C) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(u) - Promoting feelings of enmity - Offence requires attempt to promote feelings of hatred or ill-will against members of a protected group as a class - Actions directed against an individual without reference to their caste status do not satisfy the ingredients of this provision. (Paras 77)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, an editor of a media platform, uploaded a video leveling various allegations against an elected representative who belongs to a reserved constituency. The complainant alleged that the video insulted and humiliated him solely because he belongs to a marginalized community, thus invoking provisions under the Act. Lower courts denied anticipatory bail on the ground that Section 18 strictly bars the maintainability of such applications.

Findings of Court:
The court found that while Section 18 imposes a bar, it must be constructed in a manner that respects personal liberty. The court scrutinized the transcript of the video and concluded that the allegations, while defamatory in nature, lacked any nexus with the complainant's caste status and failed to demonstrate the specific intent to humiliate required by the Act.

Issues: Whether Section 18 of the Act imposes an absolute bar on the grant of anticipatory bail, and whether the contents of the complaint disclosed a prima facie case under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(u) of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: An offence under the Act is not established merely by the complainant's membership in a scheduled community. The insult must be specifically targeted at the individual due to their caste identity. In the absence of such nexus within the complaint, the statutory bar on anticipatory bail does not preclude the court from exercising its discretion to protect personal liberty.

Result: Appeal allowed; bail granted.

Table of Content
1. factual background: allegations of defamation against scheduled caste complainant. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. summary of rival contentions regarding section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(u) of the act. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. evolution and scope of anticipatory bail in context of sc/st act, 1989. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)
4. strict interpretation of 'arrest' and section 18/18-a conditions. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46)
5. requirement of prima facie evidence for applying section 18 bar. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52)
6. essential ingredients for offence under section 3(1)(r) require caste-based intent. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74)
7. section 3(1)(u) is limited to promoting hatred against group, not individuals. (Para 75 , 76 , 77)
8. mere knowledge of caste is insufficient without specific discriminatory intent. (Para 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87)
9. final order granting pre-arrest bail to the appellant. (Para 88 , 89 , 90)

J U D G M E N T

J. B. PARDIWALA, J.:

For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts: -

A. FACTUAL MATRIX...................................................................................2

B. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT ....................... 10

C. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT................. 13

D. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE................................... 15

E. RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS .......................................... 16

F. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION ......................................................... 20

G. ANALYSIS................................................................................................. 21

i. Evolution of the concept of anticipatory bail ....................................................21

ii. Whether Section 18 of the Act, 1989 imposes an absolute bar on the grant of anticipatory bail in cases registered under the said Act? ..........................27

a. Significance of the expression “arrest of any person” appearing in Section 18 of the Act, 1989................................................................................................................. 41

iii. When can it be said that a prima facie case is made out in a given FIR/complaint? ........................................................................................................47

iv. Whether the averments in the FIR/complaint in question disclose commission of any offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989? .............51

a. Meaning of the expression “intent to humiliate” appearing in Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989........................................................................................................ 55

v. Whether any offence under Section 3(1)(u) of the Act, 1989 is prima facie made out in the FIR/complaint in question?.....................................................63

vi. Whether mere knowledge of the caste identity of the complainant is sufficient to attract the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989? .....64

H. CONCLUSION.......................................................................................... 69

1. This appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 30.06.2023 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal Appeal No. 906 of 2023 filed by the appellant herein by which the High Court dismissed the appeal and thereby affirmed the order dated 16.06.2023 passed by the Special Judge for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Ernakulam Division declining to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant herein in connection with the First Information Report No. 899 of 2023 lodged by the complainant (Respondent No. 2) at the Elamakkara Police Station, District Ernakulam for the of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(SC) 7968

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAJ. B. Pardiwala, JShajan Skaria – AppellantVersusState of Kerala – RespondentCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2622 OF 2024

The statutory bar on anticipatory bail for offences under the Act is not absolute. Courts must verify if a prima facie case exists. Insults or intimidation against a member of a scheduled community only constitute an offence if the motivation is rooted in the victim's caste identity.

Cases Referred (10)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. B. Pardiwala, J
Shajan Skaria – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2622 OF 2024