Bombay High Court Quashes SC/ST Act Case Against Marathi TV Channel Over Use Of Objectionable Word Against Mahar Community

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (December 23) while quashing the First Information Report (FIR) lodged against Marathi TV Channel 'Star Pravah' for referring to a Scheduled Caste's name in one of its serial's episodes, held that mere use or reference to the name of a caste or tribe cannot constitute an offence under the stringent Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

A division bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Manjusha Deshpande, was hearing a plea filed by the Channel through its Executive Producer and also the Programming Head, who were booked along with the Director, Scribe and Actor of Marathi serial 'Laxmi versus Saraswati' on a complaint filed by one Rahul Gaikwad.

According to Gaikwad, he watched an episode of the serial, which was aired on Star Pravah on August 22, 2012, wherein one of the characters in the show used म्हारा-पोरांची (mhara-poranchi) were used in a dialogue by one the character. This was in the context of warding off evil eye, as regards the leading character in the show. The complainant claimed that the words in reference to the 'Mahar' community, were intentionally used in order to humiliate him and others, who saw the episode.

The complaint argued that even if the character, who uttered the dialogue, used the words impromptu as the same were not there in the original script, yet the petitioner Programming Head and Channel along with its Executive Producer could be held liable as they too intentionally aired the episode despite knowing that the words were used to humiliate a community.

The petitioners, however, pointed out that the words in question were used by one of the actors in the show impromptu and that the said words did not find mention in the original script so they cannot be held to be guilty of any offence as such.

The judges, noted that one of the basic ingredients for constituting an offence under the Atrocities Act is that the accused should not be a member of any Scheduled Caste or Tribe. It noted that the FIR is lodged against the Channel, which cannot be said to be a person belonging to a caste or a tribe, therefore, on the count of basic ingredient itself, the FIR fails, the judges held.

"The statement of the first informant and the contents of the FIR at no place even allege that the petitioners herein are not members of the scheduled caste or the scheduled tribe. Considering that one of the basic ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act, is that the accused must not be a member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe, it becomes clear that Channel company could never be arraigned as an accused," the bench held.

Even according to the statement of the complainant, the judges noted, the objectionable words were uttered by an actor, playing a particular character in the serial.

"The actual utterance of the words cannot even be attributed to the petitioners before this Court. The role of the petitioners before this Court of being the Programming Head of the said Channel and being the Executive Producer of the Channel, was limited to broadcasting of the serial, the content creators of which were all associated with the makers of the show. It was sought to be indicated on the part of the petitioners that the script did not contain the objectionable words and it was the actor, who impromptu and at the spur of moment uttered those words. But, at this stage itself, the aforesaid aspect cannot be gone into for the reason that the inquiry, as to whether the script indeed contained the said words or not, could be a matter of evidence in trial," the judges explained.

Further, the judges made it clear that no intention can be attributed to the petitioners before the court as they did not utter the said words.

"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, on a particular member of a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. In the present case, it cannot even be alleged that the petitioners before this Court uttered the objectionable words, much less intentionally uttered such words," the court observed.

With these observations, the bench quashed the FIR lodged against the Programming Head and the Executive Producer of Star Pravah.

Appearance:

Senior Advocates Satish Mane-Shinde and Sanjog Parab along with Advocates Sulabha Rane, Mohan Rao, Nikhil Mane-Shinde Sakshi Baadkar and Sangram Parab appeared for the Petitioners.

Additional Public Prosecutor Sharmila Kaushik represented the State.

Advocates Milind Ingole, Aishwarya Gaikwad and Manisha Bansode represented the Complainant.

Case Title: Shrabani Deodhar vs State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition 4546 of 2013)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment