The Malayalam expression “pulayadi mone,” which translates as “son of a prostitute,” is not considered a casteist slur that carries criminal penalties under the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
On 14th January the order was pronounced [pdf] by the Kerala High Court which granted pre-arrest bail to a man accused of hurling caste-based remarks. “Going by the dictionary meaning, the word means son of a prostitute. That being so, the learned counsel for the appellant/A3 is right in saying that the same is not a casteist slur,” the single-bench judge of Justice C.S. Sudha stated.
The petitioner who is also the third accused in the case had appealed the dismissal of his plea under Section 482 of BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) seeking pre-arrest bail under Section 14A of the SC/ST Act. “An offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of the scheduled caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste,” the bench clarified.
The investigation also asserted that the offence under Section 3(1)(r) had been committed, however, the bench countered that a violation under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would specify the elements of deliberate intimidation and insult with the goal of degrading a member of a scheduled tribe or caste. It further pointed out that any form of abuse or intimidation directed towards an individual shall not be considered a breach under the Act unless such actions are motivated by the victim’s affiliation with a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe community.
The court observed that “in the FIR the prosecution has no case of commission of an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r) or(s) of the Act. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would indicate the ingredients of intentional insult and intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe.”
“All insults or intimidation to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of the victim belonging to the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. The object of the Act is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes as they are denied a number of civil rights. Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of the society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment,” the court conveyed.
It also expressed that the prosecution’s case attracting a charge under Section 3(1)(s) or (r) of the Act is not mentioned in the FIR and added, “Further, to attract the offence under Section 3(1)(r), the abuse should have taken place in public view. Going by the allegations in FIS (First Information Statement), it appears that the nearby residents gathered on hearing the cries of the informant and Abiraj. When A1 is alleged to have abused the informant and Abiraj, nobody else seems to have been present there. Therefore, if at all the aforesaid word is taken as a casteist slur, it does not seem to have been done in public view.”
The court highlighted that “a reading of the FIS shows that the incident happened due to a dispute relating to the vehicle of Abiraj and not because the informant and Abiraj belong to the scheduled caste community.” It stated that conflicts unrelated to caste identification cannot automatically invoke the provisions of the SC/ST Act, citing Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and Khuman Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh. Hence, the judge established that a vehicle disagreement was the cause of the conflict between the complainants and the accused. “Therefore, prima facie it is doubtful whether the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act will be made out,” the court concluded.
Accordingly, it noted that there isn’t any initial evidence to support an offence under Section 3(1)(s) or (r) of the Act and granted the accused’s request for pre-arrest bail. The judge ruled that there was no need to question the accused in custody, nevertheless, informed that the observations applied only to the bail proceedings and would not have an impact on the trial.
Background of the case
The incident transpired on 12th November 2024 at Perumbavoor. The three accused (A1, A2 and A3) subjected him and his brother-in-law Abiraj to abuse and intentionally hurt them. A1 an A3 are his neighbours and also acquainted with Abiraj. A2 is A1’s father. They are aware that he is a member of the Pulaya community. Arun, his relative, was thrown down and beaten by A1 a few days ago while riding Abiraj’s motorcycle. The vehicle sustained damage in the attack. They insisted that A1 restore the two-wheeler, but he refused leading to an altercation between him and Abiraj.
Abiraj and A1 and A3 got into an argument at 9:50 am on the day of the instance which resulted in a scuffle. Upon hearing this, the informant went to the scene, however, Abiraj had already returned home. Later, at around 10:05 pm, the duo were standing on his car porch and talking about the matter when A2 entered the residence’s courtyard. He asked as to who had beaten A1 and then spat obscenities at them. When he and Abiraj told him to leave and stated that the issue could be discussed the following morning, A2 punched him on the left side of his face and gave him a bleeding wound on his lip.
He also did the same to Abiraj on his neck. A1 and A3 also showed up at the courtyard as they attempted to send A2 away. A1 then questioned Abiraj’s presence there after which he abused him and beat him on his head and neck. Abiraj was pulled onto the road in front of the home by A1 and A3. A1 also stabbed him in the left shoulder with scissors, causing bleeding. He again injured him by striking him above the left side of his lip. Afterwards, they absconded when people hurried to the site as they heard the cries. A1 deliberately struck Abiraj because he wanted to know why the former had damaged his vehicle.
The informant claimed that A1 and A2 attacked and humiliated them since they were sure that no one would question their actions because the latter were members of the scheduled caste community. According to the FIR (First Information Report), A1 through A3 are charged with committing the offences specified in Sections 329(3), 115(2), and 118(1), as well as 3(5) of the BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) and 3(2)(va) of the Act. The trial court had earlier denied the pre-arrest bail request, concluding that the Act’s Sections 18 and 18A are applicable.
