Recently, the Bombay High Court was seized of a challenge to criminal proceedings initiated against senior television channel executives and a broadcasting company over the telecast of a Marathi serial episode alleged to have used caste-specific and offensive expressions, purportedly insulting members of a Scheduled Caste in public view. The petitions sought quashing of the FIR registered under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 the Protection of Civil Rights Act,1955 and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.
Brief Facts:
The case arose from an FIR lodged after an episode of a Marathi television serial was aired, in which a character allegedly uttered words referring to a Scheduled Caste while warding off the “evil eye.” The complainant claimed that the dialogue humiliated and insulted members of the concerned caste and was telecast openly for public viewing. Along with the actor, writer, and director associated with the serial, the FIR also named the Programming Head of the channel, the Executive Producer, and the broadcasting company as accused, prompting them to approach the High Court for quashing of the proceedings.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The counsel for the Petitioners argued that even if the allegations in the FIR were accepted at face value, no basic ingredients of the alleged offences were made out against them. The counsel contended that they neither authored the script nor uttered the alleged objectionable words, and that the content was created by an independent production house. The Petitioner further submitted that mens rea or intentional insult, which is a mandatory requirement under the Atrocities Act, IPC Section 295A, and the PCR Act, could not be attributed to them. The petitioners also emphasized that a disclaimer was displayed before the telecast and that mere broadcasting of content cannot amount to criminal liability in the absence of specific intent
Contentions of the Respondents:
The State and the complainant opposed the petitions, asserting that the episode’s telecast amounted to an act committed in public view and that failure to edit out the objectionable dialogue indicated culpability. They relied on witness statements claiming humiliation and argued that sufficient material existed to disclose the commission of offences. The counsel further contended that the FIR had been registered pursuant to a judicial direction and that the Petitioners’ pleas raised disputed questions of fact which ought to be examined at trial rather than at the quashing stage.
Observation of the Court:
The Court highlighted that for an offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to be made out, intentional insult with the object of humiliating a specific member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is a mandatory requirement. The Court observed that “For a prima facie case of having committed the aforesaid offence to be made out, it is to be concluded that the acts attributable to the accused persons do show an intention on their part to insult or intimidate with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.”
The Bench made it clear that mere reference to a caste name does not automatically amount to an offence, unless accompanied by deliberate intent to insult or humiliate. It categorically held that “Mere use or reference to the name of a caste, included in the list of scheduled castes or scheduled tribes, cannot in itself constitute an offence, unless it is referred to or used intentionally to inflict insult, intimidation or humiliation.”
Rejecting the attempt to attribute criminal liability to channel officials and broadcasters, the Court noted that the petitioners had not themselves uttered the alleged words and therefore could not be presumed to have the requisite mens rea. The Court observed that “It cannot even be alleged that the petitioners before this Court uttered the objectionable words, much less intentionally uttered such words.”
On the overall absence of guilty intent, the Court concluded that even prima facie, the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were missing, holding that “Intention or mens rea or guilty mind, even prima facie cannot be attributed to the petitioners before this Court for constituting offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act.”
The decision of the Court:
The Court allowed the petitions and quashed the FIR against the petitioners, holding that the basic ingredients of the alleged offences were not made out even prima facie. The Court found that no intentional insult or mens rea could be attributed to the channel officials or the broadcasting company. It clarified that the quashing would apply only to the petitioners, and not to the other accused named in the case.
Case Title: Shrabani Deodhar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 4546 of 2013
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Manish Pitale and Hon’ble Mr Justice Manjusha Deshpande
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sr. Adv. Satish Mane-Shinde with Adv. Sulabha V. Rane and Adv. Nikhil Mane-Shinde
Counsel for the Respondent: APP Sharmila Kaushik, Adv. Milind A. Ingole with Adv. Aishwarya Gaikwad and Adv. Manisha Bansode
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
