Misusing Civil Rights Provisions Dilutes Purpose: Kerala HC Declines Relief For Claim That Denial To Enter Office Without Appointment Was 'Untouchability'

The Kerala High Court recently rejected a plea under the Protection of Civil Rights Act, stating that unless the obstruction or annoyance was committed by the accused while the petitioner was exercising any right that accrues to him because of the abolition of untouchability, section 7(1)(b) of the Act would not be attracted.

“A mere obstruction or annoyance to a person cannot give rise to the said offence” stated Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas.

The court was hearing a plea where the petitioner, a member of the Scheduled Caste community, was challenging the refusal of the Magistrate to take cognizance of certain offences that were part of the complaint before the magistrate.

The petitioner alleged that the accused had refused to permit the petitioner to enter the Area Manager's office of Indian Oil Corporation to lodge a complaint. The petitioner had then filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam alleging offences under Section 506(i) (criminal intimidation) and Section 192 (fabricating false evidence) of IPC, along with Sections 7(1)(b) (punishment for untouchability) and 12 (presumption of court) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 but the Magistrate only took cognizance of the offence under Section 506(i) of IPC.

The High Court noted that the petitioner was prevented from entering the office because he did not have an appointment. Court said the petitioner also failed to point out any law which confers upon him the right to enter the Area Manager's office.

"The office room of any officer of an establishment is his private space, and in the absence of prior permission, no one can claim a right of entry into such offices," the Court remarked, adding that the alleged obstruction was not on account of untouchability.

Additionally, the court stated that the presumption under section 12 of the Act can apply only if the accused was aware or informed that the petitioner belongs to a scheduled caste community, which was not the case herein.

Thus, it dismissed the plea. In parting, the Court expressed dismay at the increasing abuse of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, observing that “misuse of the provisions of the Act can dilute the purpose for which the Act was enacted.”

Case Title: MP Chothy v. Anilkumar & anr.

Case Number: Crl MC No. 9593 of 2023

Citation: Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 132

Counsel for Respondents: Advocates MC Ashi (Public Prosecutor), Gopikrishnan Nambiar M, K John Mathai, Joson Manavalan, Kuryan Thomas, Paulose C Abraham, Raja Kannan

Click here to read/download the order