Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Against Lawyer For Using Word 'Bhangi'

The Bombay High Court while quashing an FIR lodged against an advocate for using the term 'Bhangi', recently said that though the Maharashtra government has by way of a circular replaced the said term with 'Rukhi' or 'Walmiki' but the said word is still used in the Constitution of India for providing benefits to Sweepers. A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay Deshmukh said the Maharashtra government's circular issued on November 9, 2000, by which the State precluded the use of the word 'Bhangi' in daily transactions and communications and replaced it with the words 'Rukhi' or 'Walmiki' does not apply on the words used in the Constitution. "It is stated that the Circular issued on November 9, 2000, has been issued with an intention that words Rukhi and Walmiki should be used in daily transactions, communications and Government communications, however, the circular does not affect the words which are used in the Constitution of India, which gives benefit to the Sweepers under Legal Provision. Thus, it is to be noted that the intention of the circular is limited and the circular does not intend to replace the words those are already there in the Constitution of India. The reliance of the informant on this circular is uncalled for or in a sense that it cannot be so used as the informant intends to use it," the bench held in the order passed on April 30. The bench noted that the applicant Kedar Bhusari, an advocate by profession, had in August 2023, made a video showing the garbage dumped in his vicinity for days altogether with no worker of the Jalgaon Municipal Corporation (JMC) cleaning it. He therefore, made a video of the said garbage and is heard complaining about the same not being picked up from the site for days altogether because of which pigs have come in the said area. He is heard saying that these pigs have come from 'Bhangiwada' (भंगीवाडा) and 'Mehtarwada' (मेहतरवाडा). He further stated in the said video that public health may get affected because of the nuisance of the pigs and the garbage being dumped and not cleaned. The judges held, "These words cannot be considered as targeting or insulting or intimidating members of Rukhi or Walmiki caste. Certainly, the intention behind stating that, was to point out that pigs have come from a particular area which might be known with a name since years together."Further, the bench noted that Bhusari had sent this video to the WhatsApp of one Uday Patil, an Assistant Commissioner of the JMC, who forwarded the said video in the JMC's official group called 'Health Department.' The judges noted from Patil's testimony that he often sends public grievances in the official group but when he sent this video thinking it to be a grievance, he immediately deleted the same after certain members in the group complained about the language used in the video. "It is to be noted that the said forward by witness Uday Patil was not under the control of the applicant. Prosecution at this stage has not come with the case that Uday Patil is a member of Scheduled Caste i.e. of the same community to which the informant belongs. When witness Uday Patil states that without application of mind and in hurry he had forwarded the said video under the impression that it is the complaint in respect of not picking the garbage, then it probably appears to be the same intention of the applicant behind sending video to Uday Patil," the bench opined in the order. Further, the bench noted that though the complainant, a member of the SC community is not a member of the WhatsApp group, where the video was forwarded by Uday Patil, he yet received it through some other workers of the JMC but still it was not clear, even as per police probe, as to who forwarded the video to the complainant and other witnesses. "Thus, this appears to be another classical example of forwards on the WhatsApp groups and WhatsApp of individuals without application of mind or without considering the consequences," the bench underscored. With these observations, the bench quashed the FIR lodged against the applicant. Appearance:Advocate SV Dixit appeared for the Applicant.Additional Public Prosecutor NR Dayama represented the State.Advocate HV Tungar was appointed to represent the Complainant. Case Title: Kedar Bhusari vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Application 3176 of 2023)Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Against Lawyer For Using Word 'Bhangi'

Narsi Benwal