“Not all insults can be ruled as offences under SC/ST law

Last Updated25/08/2024

The Supreme Court held in a judgment on Friday (August 23, 2024) that not all insults and intimidatory comments aimed at a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe person.

In a significant ruling on August 23, 2024, the Supreme Court clarified the scope of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, emphasizing that not all insults or intimidatory comments directed at a Scheduled Caste (SC) or Scheduled Tribe (ST) individual would constitute an offence under the Act.
This judgment has profound implications for the application of the Act, especially concerning the intent behind alleged offences.

The ruling came while the Court was hearing an anticipatory bail plea by Shajan Skaria, editor and publisher of the YouTube channel “Marunadan Malayali.” Mr. Skaria was accused of uploading a derogatory video targeting Kerala MLA P.V. Sreenijin, a member of the SC community.
Skaria was booked under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(u) of the 1989 Act, which deal with the public insult of SC/ST individuals with the intent to humiliate and promote enmity against SC/ST communities.

The Bench, comprising Justices P.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, held that merely directing insults or intimidatory comments at an SC/ST individual does not automatically attract the provisions of the SC/ST Act.
The Court emphasized that the Act is triggered only if the insult or intimidation is directly linked to the victim's identity as an SC/ST member. The intent must be to demean or humiliate the individual specifically because of their caste.

Justice Pardiwala noted that the intention behind the insult is crucial. If the insult was made with the primary purpose of asserting caste superiority or reinforcing caste-based discrimination, then the provisions of the Act would apply.
The Court observed that in Mr. Skaria’s case, there was no evidence to suggest that the derogatory comments were made solely because of the victim’s caste. The video targeted the complainant individually, without any broader attack on the SC/ST community.

The judgment sets a precedent for a more nuanced application of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It highlights the importance of intent and context in determining whether an offence under the Act has been committed.
This ruling could impact future cases where the SC/ST Act is invoked, ensuring that only those actions driven by caste-based discrimination are prosecuted under this special law.