Brief Facts
- The Appellant (Editor of an online news channel) published a video on YouTube, levelling certain allegations against the Complainant.
- The Complainant MLA, representing the Kunnathunad constituency (seat reserved for the members of the Scheduled Castes) aggrieved by the aforesaid video, filed a complaint, alleging commission of offences u/s 3(1) (r), (u) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1989) by publishing a video on YouTube in order to publicise, abuse and insult complainant MLA who belonged to Scheduled Caste (SC).
- Apprehending arrest, the Appellant filed Application before the special Judge u/s 438. CrPC for grant of Anticipatory bail.
- The Special Judge refused the application stating bar u/s 18 of Act of 1989, which was also upheld by the High Court.
- The same was challenged before the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether Sec. 18 of the Act of 1989 imposes an absolute bar on the grant of anticipatory bail in cases registered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 Act?
- When can it be said that a prima facie case is made out in a given FIR/complaint?
- Whether the averments in the FIR/complaint in question disclose commission of any offence u/s 3(1)(r) of the Act of 1989?
- Whether any offence u/s 3(1)(u) of the Act of 1989 could be said to have been prima facie made out in the FIR/complaint in question?
- Whether mere knowledge of the caste identity of the complainant is sufficient to attract the offence u/s 3(1)(r) of the Act of 1989?
- Meaning of the expression “intent to humiliate” appearing in Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989.
Held
- The Apex Court allowed the Appeal and granted the anticipatory bail to the Appellant. The findings of the Court are as under:
- The purpose behind incorporating Sec. 438 in CrPC was to recognise the importance of personal liberty and freedom in a free and democratic country. A careful reading of this Sec. reveals that the legislature was keen to ensure respect for the personal liberty by pressing in service the age-old principle that an individual is presumed to be innocent till he is found guilty by the court.
No absolute bar on anticipatory bail when offence under Act of 1989 is not prima facie made out
- Although Sec. 18 of the Act, 1989 creates a bar for invoking Sec. 438 of the CrPC yet the courts are entrusted with a duty to verify the averments in the complaint and to find out whether an offence under the Act, 1989 is prima faciemade out or not. It was further observed that while considering the application for anticipatory bail, the scope for appreciation of evidence and other material is limited and the courts are not expected to undertake an intricate evidentiary inquiry of the materials on record.
Courts may conduct preliminary enquiry to determine whether prima facie offence under Act made out or not
- An accusation which does not disclose the necessary ingredients of the offence o n a prima faciereading cannot be said to be sufficient to bring into operation the bar envisaged by Sec. 18 of the Act, 1989.
- The courts should not shy away from conducting a preliminary inquiry to determine if the narration of facts in the complaint/FIR in fact discloses the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under the Act, 1989. It is expected of the courts to apply their judicial mind to determine whether the allegations levelled in the complaint, on a plain reading, satisfy the ingredients constituting the alleged offence
Existence of intention to humiliate necessary to constitute offence under Section 3(1)(r)
- Offence u/s 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 is not established merely on the fact that the complainant is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, unless there is an intention to humiliate such a member for the reason that he belongs to such community.
Mere knowledge of the Case identity of the Complainant does not attract offence under Section 3(1)(r) of Act 1989
- There is nothing to even prima facieindicate that the appellant by publishing the video on YouTube promoted or attempted to promote feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will against the members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. The video has nothing to do in general with the members of Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe. His target was just the complainant alone. The offence u/s 3(1)(u) will come into play only when any person is trying to promote ill feeling or enmity against the members of the scheduled castes or scheduled tribes as a group and not as individuals.
- Mere knowledge of the fact that the victim is a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is not sufficient to attract Sec. 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989. The offence must have been committed against the person on the ground or for the reason that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
Relevant Para No.
- 18, 38, 50, 51, 60, 77 and 80