Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Shajan Skaria, the editor of an online news channel 'Marunandan Malayali', published a YouTube video on 24.05.2023 levelling allegations against the complainant, P.V. Srinijan, a Member of the Kerala Legislative Assembly from a reserved constituency. The complainant, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste Pulaya community, filed an FIR alleging offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(u) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant sought anticipatory bail, which was rejected by the Special Judge and affirmed by the High Court of Kerala on the ground that Section 18 of the Act bars such relief. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the bar under Section 18 is not absolute and applies only when a prima facie case is made out. The Court examined the contents of the video and found that the allegations were general criticisms of the complainant's conduct as a public figure and did not specifically target his caste identity. The Court emphasized that the expression 'intent to humiliate' in Section 3(1)(r) requires a deliberate intention to insult on the ground of caste, which was absent. Similarly, Section 3(1)(u) requires intentional insult or intimidation in a place within public view, which was not satisfied. The Court set aside the impugned orders and granted anticipatory bail to the appellant subject to conditions.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 438 - Anticipatory Bail - SC/ST Act, 1989 - Section 18 - Bar on Anticipatory Bail - The Court examined whether Section 18 imposes an absolute bar on grant of anticipatory bail in cases under the SC/ST Act. Held that the bar is not absolute and if no prima facie case is made out, the bar does not operate. The court must examine the FIR to see if the ingredients of the alleged offence are satisfied. (Paras 27-46) B) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(r) - Intent to Humiliate - The Court interpreted the expression 'intent to humiliate' and held that mere critical remarks or allegations against a public figure, even if harsh, do not attract the offence unless there is specific intent to humiliate on the ground of caste. The insult must be targeted at the victim's caste identity. (Paras 55-62) C) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(u) - Prima Facie Case - The Court held that the allegations in the FIR did not disclose any act of intentionally insulting or intimidating the complainant with intent to humiliate in a place within public view, as required under Section 3(1)(u). The video was a general criticism of the complainant's conduct as a public figure. (Paras 63-64) D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 438 - Anticipatory Bail - Prima Facie Case - The Court reiterated that while considering anticipatory bail, the court must assess whether a prima facie case is made out. If the allegations do not satisfy the ingredients of the offence, the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act does not apply. (Paras 47-50)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the anticipatory bail application of the appellant on the ground that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act imposes an absolute bar, and whether the allegations in the FIR prima facie disclose offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(u) of the Act.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the Special Judge and the High Court, and granted anticipatory bail to the appellant subject to conditions.
Law Points
- Anticipatory bail
- Prima facie case
- Intent to humiliate
- Caste-based insult
- Section 18 bar
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
- 1989
