A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case evaluates whether Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereafter referred to as the SC/ST Act) imposes an absolute bar on anticipatory bail in the context of alleged offences under Section 3(1)(r) and Section 3(1)(u) of the Act. It further examines when a prima facie case is deemed established and whether mere knowledge of caste identity suffices to attract liability under the SC/ST Act. The Supreme Court, in this appeal, explores the interplay between protecting vulnerable groups and safeguarding individual liberty under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), particularly Section 438, which provides for anticipatory bail. This judgment delves into whether courts can grant pre-arrest bail in circumstances where allegations fail to substantiate prima facie offences under the SC/ST Act.

Keywords: Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, anticipatory bail, prima facie, caste-based insult, Section 18 bar.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title: Shajan Skaria v. The State of Kerala & Anr.

ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 2622 of 2024.

iii) Judgment Date: 23 August 2024.

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India.

v) Quorum: Hon’ble Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.

vi) Author: Justice J.B. Pardiwala.

vii) Citation: [2024] 8 S.C.R. 1086; 2024 INSC 625.

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Section 3(1)(r), Section 3(1)(u), Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, 1989.
• Section 438, CrPC.
• Section 500, IPC (defamation).

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any): None identified.

x) Case is Related to Law Subjects: Constitutional law, Criminal law, Human rights law.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The appellant, a journalist, was denied anticipatory bail by the High Court of Kerala in a case filed under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(u) of the SC/ST Act. The complaint arose from a YouTube video alleging misconduct by the complainant, an MLA representing a Scheduled Caste constituency. The appellant was accused of publishing content intended to humiliate the complainant based on caste. The case questioned the constitutional scope of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, which bars anticipatory bail in such cases, and whether the bar applies universally or requires a prima facie establishment of offences.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant published a video alleging corruption and misconduct by the complainant, including terms like “mafia don” and references to his caste identity. The complainant, alleging humiliation and defamation targeting his Scheduled Caste identity, filed an FIR under the SC/ST Act. The appellant sought anticipatory bail, contending no prima facie case was established for offences under Sections 3(1)(r) or 3(1)(u) of the Act, asserting his journalistic right to criticize public figures without caste bias.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Does Section 18 of the SC/ST Act impose an absolute bar on anticipatory bail?
2. What constitutes a prima facie case for offences under Section 3(1)(r) or Section 3(1)(u) of the Act?
3. Does mere knowledge of the complainant’s caste identity suffice to attract liability under the SC/ST Act?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The appellant argued that the content in the video did not target the complainant’s caste or Scheduled Caste identity, making the bar under Section 18 inapplicable.
2. He cited precedents like Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020) 10 SCC 710, emphasizing the need for explicit intent to humiliate based on caste for liability under Section 3(1)(r).
3. The appellant invoked the Supreme Court judgment in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020) 4 SCC 727, highlighting that Section 18 applies only when prima facie ingredients of the offence are established.
4. He stressed that defamation, even if proven, should attract provisions under Section 500 of the IPC and not the SC/ST Act.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The complainant contended that the video targeted him with derogatory terms and allegations, aiming to humiliate him in public due to his caste.
2. The respondent argued that the SC/ST Act intends to prevent humiliation rooted in caste identity, as evident from the complainant’s election from a reserved constituency.
3. It was claimed that the video caused severe public humiliation, satisfying the intent requirement under Section 3(1)(r).
4. The State opposed anticipatory bail, citing potential misuse of freedom to impede justice.

H) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi:

1. The Court ruled that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act does not impose an absolute bar on anticipatory bail. Courts must first ascertain if a prima facie case exists under the Act.
2. A prima facie case is deemed absent if allegations fail to disclose the requisite intent to humiliate based on caste.

b. Obiter Dicta:

• The Court remarked on the misuse of SC/ST Act provisions for non-caste-based disputes, emphasizing a contextual inquiry into allegations.

c. Guidelines Issued:

1. Courts must conduct a preliminary inquiry to determine the presence of prima facie ingredients of caste-based offences.
2. Cases involving public figures or journalists require a balanced consideration of free speech and protection against caste-based discrimination.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This judgment balances the objectives of the SC/ST Act with the right to liberty and freedom of expression. By requiring a prima facie establishment of caste-based intent, it prevents misuse of the Act while protecting vulnerable groups.

J) REFERENCES

1. Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020) 10 SCC 710.
2. Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020) 4 SCC 727.
3. Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2023) SCC OnLine SC 668.
4. Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694.