Kerala High Court Refuses To Quash SC-ST Case Against Principal Who Allegedly Told Dalit Colleague He Had A “Manufacturing Defect”;

A Single Bench of Justice V.G. Arun noticed, “To place it pithily, solely the wearer is aware of the place the shoe pinches. Subsequently, whereas deciding whether or not an insult or intimidation is on account of the sufferer belonging to the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe, the context and the situation is of utmost significance.”

The Courtroom added, “…the Scheduled Castes in India have confronted systemic ignominy like exclusion, untouchability and violence rooted in centuries outdated caste hierarchy. That they had restricted entry to assets, land and high quality training. Even with the protecting provisions within the Structure and enactments just like the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the discrimination and ostracization has not been absolutely eradicated. One can not even be oblivious of the truth that the tolerance stage of individuals belonging to the susceptible sections won’t be the identical as individuals who haven’t suffered any such ignominy.”

Senior Advocate Abraham Vakkanal appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Advocate Thomas J. Anakkallunkal appeared for the Respondents.

Transient Info

The Petitioner, a school principal, is the accused in a legal case registered below Part 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. A grievance was filed by Respondent No.3, a college member belonging to a Scheduled Caste.

In line with the grievance, throughout a employees assembly, the Petitioner questioned Respondent No.3 for utilizing his cell phone. When the Respondent No. 3 replied that he was taking notes, the Petitioner allegedly stated, “You might be behaving like this as a result of you might have a producing defect.” The Respondent No.3 replied that his dad and mom had been educated and respectable, to which the Petitioner allegedly added that he knew the household background and that disclosing it could be a matter of disgrace. It was alleged that these statements had been made in entrance of others, with the intent to humiliate on account of caste.

The Petitioner moved the Excessive Courtroom in search of quashing of the proceedings, submitting that the remarks weren’t caste-linked, that the incident passed off in a employees room and never inside public view, and that the grievance was false and malicious. Respondent No.3 opposed the plea, contending that the remarks had been clearly caste-based and that the FIR disclosed a triable offence.

Reasoning of the Courtroom

The Courtroom famous that whether or not the alleged comment was made close to caste id and whether or not it was made inside public view had been each issues requiring proof, and rejected the argument that the FIR disclosed no offence.

Referring to the statutory requirement below Part 3(1)(r), the Courtroom noticed, “All insults or intimidations to an individual won’t be an offence below the Act except such insult or intimidation is on account of sufferer belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.”

On the argument that the assertion was not made inside public view, the Courtroom noticed, “Public view typically means one thing that’s seen and accessible to most of the people. It implies that the item or exercise in query might be seen and/or skilled by a major variety of folks, slightly than being hidden or non-public. Subsequently the expression ‘inside public view’ can be taken as any exercise or occasion which is seen or audible to individuals aside from the direct individuals. Subsequently the query whether or not the insulting comment made inside the corridor might be perceived as one thing carried out inside public view can solely be determined primarily based on proof.”

Being attentive to the Petitioner’s rivalry that the FIR was an abuse of course of, the Bench stated, “It is usually the settled legislation that for the aim of exercising the inherent energy below Part 482 of Cr.P.C, the Excessive Courtroom can not conduct a mini trial or microscopic scrutiny of paperwork.”

Consequently, the Courtroom dismissed the petition, whereas observing that whether or not the insulting comment made contained in the corridor could possibly be primarily based on proof