In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court clarified that not every insult against individuals from Scheduled Castes (SC) or Scheduled Tribes (ST) qualifies as an offense under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. This decision came on August 23, 2024, and highlights the nuances in applying this special law.
Check for Amazing Discount on Electronic Gadgets*The case involved Shajan Skaria, the editor and publisher of the YouTube channel “Marunadan Malayali,” who was granted anticipatory bail. Skaria faced allegations under the 1989 Act for supposedly uploading a derogatory video about Kerala MLA P.V. Sreenijan, who belongs to the SC community.
Check for Amazing Discount on Electronic Gadgets*Justices P.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra explained that the SC/ST Act does not automatically apply whenever an SC/ST person is insulted. Instead, the Act applies if the insult is specifically related to the person’s caste identity. In other words, the court stated that for an offense under this Act, the insult or intimidation must be directly tied to the victim’s caste status.
Justice Pardiwala pointed out that the 1989 Act is designed to address cases where the humiliation is rooted in caste-based prejudice. This means that if an insult is not specifically intended to demean someone because of their SC/ST status, it may not qualify as an offense under this law.
In Skaria’s case, the court found no indication that the derogatory remarks were made with the intent to target Sreenijan solely due to his caste. The judgment noted that there was no evidence suggesting that Sreenijan’s SC status was the reason behind the video’s content. Rather, the video seemed to focus on Sreenijan as an individual, not on his caste identity.
The court also emphasized that the Act’s provisions, specifically Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(u), require that any insult or act of intimidation be intricately linked to the victim’s caste identity. Section 3(1)(r) deals with public insults intended to humiliate an SC/ST person, while Section 3(1)(u) addresses acts promoting hatred or enmity against SC/ST communities. However, simply knowing that the victim is from an SC/ST community is not enough to invoke these sections.
Justice Pardiwala further explained that the 1989 Act aims to address serious issues of caste-based discrimination, such as practices of untouchability or reinforcing historical caste hierarchies. Therefore, for an offense to be recognized under this Act, the insult or intimidation must reflect these deeply ingrained prejudices.
The court’s ruling indicates a careful approach to how caste-based laws are applied, ensuring that the intent behind the actions is thoroughly examined. The decision reinforces that the SC/ST Act is meant to address specific forms of caste-based discrimination and not every insult directed at an SC/ST person will automatically fall under its purview.