On August 23, 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment in the case of Shajan Skaria vs. State of Kerala & Anr. [Criminal Appeal No. 2622 of 2024], where the court tackled the contentious issue of anticipatory bail under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). This judgment holds substantial importance as it strikes a balance between protecting the rights of marginalized communities and preventing the misuse of the SC/ST Act for personal vendettas.
Background of the Case
The case began when Shajan Skaria, a journalist and editor of an online news channel "Marunandan Malayali," published a video on YouTube on May 24, 2023, which contained serious allegations against P.V. Sreenijan, a member of the Kerala Legislative Assembly representing the Kunnathunad constituency (a seat reserved for Scheduled Castes). The video claimed that Sreenijan acted like a "mafia don" and accused him of obstructing business ventures, including the prominent Kitex industry, while making unfounded allegations of corruption and even murder.
Aggrieved by these accusations, Sreenijan filed a complaint under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(u) of the SC/ST Act, which deal with intentionally insulting or intimidating a member of the Scheduled Caste and promoting enmity or hatred against such communities, respectively. Consequently, the police registered an FIR against Skaria and others under the SC/ST Act and the Kerala Police Act. In response, Skaria sought anticipatory bail, which was denied by both the Special Court and the Kerala High Court, prompting him to appeal before the Supreme Court.
Key Issues Addressed by the Court
The Supreme Court's judgment, authored by Justice J.B. Pardiwala, extensively examined the legal issues surrounding anticipatory bail in cases involving the SC/ST Act. The court structured its judgment by addressing six major legal questions:
Absolute Bar on Anticipatory Bail Under SC/ST Act: The court examined whether Section 18 of the SC/ST Act imposes an absolute bar on anticipatory bail. Section 18 prevents the application of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which provides for anticipatory bail. While acknowledging the importance of this provision to protect SC/ST members from atrocities, the court clarified that the bar on anticipatory bail applies only when a prima facie case is made out under the SC/ST Act.
What Constitutes a Prima Facie Case?: The court emphasized that anticipatory bail can only be denied if there is a prima facie case of an offense under the SC/ST Act. In other words, it must be evident from the FIR or complaint that the alleged act was carried out solely because the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. If the allegations fail to meet this standard, the bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18 would not apply.
Intent to Humiliate: One of the core elements for an offense under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act is that the insult or intimidation must be intentional and aimed at humiliating the victim because of their caste identity. The court, citing its earlier rulings, held that not every insult or allegation against an SC/ST member would fall under the purview of the Act unless it is explicitly linked to the person’s caste. In this case, the court found that the derogatory statements made by Skaria, though reckless, were not directly linked to Sreenijan’s caste identity.
Mere Knowledge of Caste Identity Is Not Enough: The court clarified that merely knowing that the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Tribe is insufficient to trigger the SC/ST Act's provisions. The offense must specifically target the individual due to their caste, and not simply involve them in general defamatory statements or accusations.
Defamation vs. Caste-Based Insult: In assessing the nature of the allegations made by Skaria, the court held that the accusations, although defamatory in nature, did not fulfill the criteria for an offense under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act. The allegations were directed at Sreenijan as an individual, and there was no indication that the statements were made with the intent to humiliate him based on his caste identity.
Promoting Enmity Against SC/ST Communities: The court also looked into Section 3(1)(u) of the SC/ST Act, which deals with promoting enmity, hatred, or ill-will against SC/ST communities. It held that this provision applies when such enmity is directed against the community as a whole, rather than at an individual. In Skaria’s case, the court found no evidence that he attempted to promote hatred or ill-will against the SC/ST community.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
The Supreme Court delved into the history and evolution of anticipatory bail, stressing its importance as a safeguard of personal liberty. The court recognized that while the SC/ST Act was designed to prevent atrocities against vulnerable communities, it was essential to ensure that it is not misused to settle personal or political scores.
The judgment highlighted the following:
Strict Interpretation of Penal Provisions: The court reiterated that penal statutes like the SC/ST Act must be interpreted strictly. If the allegations do not clearly disclose the ingredients necessary for constituting an offense under the Act, the accused cannot be deprived of their right to anticipatory bail.
Role of Courts in Ensuring Justice: The court emphasized that judicial scrutiny is necessary when determining whether an offense under the SC/ST Act is made out. Courts should carefully examine the facts and allegations before allowing the SC/ST Act to come into play, especially in cases where the provisions of the Act may have been invoked maliciously or without basis.
Conclusion and Impact
In its conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Kerala High Court and the Special Judge. It directed that Skaria be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest, subject to conditions imposed by the investigating officer.
This judgment is a critical intervention in the discourse around the SC/ST Act and its use in criminal proceedings. By ensuring that the law is not misused, the Supreme Court has provided much-needed clarity on the circumstances under which anticipatory bail can be granted, even in cases involving the SC/ST Act. The ruling underscores the importance of judicial discretion in balancing the protection of marginalized communities with the preservation of individual liberties.
In summary, the court's decision reinforces that while the SC/ST Act is a powerful tool to combat atrocities, its application must be measured and grounded in clear, caste-based discrimination, ensuring that justice is not weaponized for wrongful purposes.
