The Supreme Court recently comprising of a bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose quashed a charge sheet filed against DMK leader and Rajya Sabha MP RS Bharathi under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act over a speech made by him. The bench closed the criminal case against the MP after holding that his speech did not fulfil the ingredients to attract the offenses for which he has been charged. (RS Bharathi vs. State )
The bench observed that there is no disrespect shown to Justice Varadarajan. Though he indulged in intemperate rant which should have been avoided, there is nothing in the speech which attracts an offence under either Section 3 (1) (u) or 3(1)(v) of the SC-ST Act.
Facts of the case
The proceedings were initiated against Bharathi for his March 2020 speech in which he had said, “I am openly telling you not even one Harijan has become a HC Judge in Northern states specially in Madhya Pradesh. But, in TN when Kalaignar came to power, he got Varadharajan appointed as a High Court Judge. “Afterwards, if 7-8 people belonging to Adi Dravida Community became judges, it was because of the alms of the Dravidian movement...”
The present appeal was filed after the Refusal to quash an FIR by the High Court of Madras registered against the appellant under Sections 3(1)(u) and 3(1)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘the Act’)
Contention of the Parties
The counsel for the appellant argued that the ingredients of Sections 3(1) (u) and 3(1)(v) of the Act are not made out and hence the charge sheet is liable to be quashed. He further argued that there is nothing spoken by the appellant which results in disrespect to Justice Varadharajan or other Judges of the High Court belonging to Adi Dravida Community. He also submitted that, at the most, the language used in the speech is not proper.
The leaned senior counsel appearing for the State referred to Section 3(1)(v) of the Act to submit that prima facie an offence has been made out as the appellant in his speech stated that it was only because of the alms thrown by Kalaignar (Late M. Karunanidhi) that Justice Varadarajan and other persons belonging to Adi Dravida Community were appointed as Judges of the High Court. He emphasized the point that the prosecution should not be nipped at the bud at this stage. He stated that this is a fit case for Trial.
The learned senior counsel appearing for the complainant also referred to Section 3(1)(v) of the Act and supported the submissions of Mr. Rohatgi that no interference is warranted in this appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court. She referred to that part of the speech where the appellant clearly stated that Justice Varadarajan and other persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste community were made judges only because of the D.M.K party.
Courts Observation & Judgment
The court noted that Section 3(1)(u) of the Act would show that it is attracted only in a case where a person not belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe has through his speech promotes or attempts to promote feeling of enmity, hatred or ill will against members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe.
The court remarked, "A careful reading of the speech does not show that there is any attempt made by the appellant to promote or attempt to promote enmity, hatred or ill will against the members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community. On the other hand, the speech indicates that members of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes have been benefited due to the benevolence of Late M. Karunanidhi."
Section 3(1)(v) of the Act is concerned, a person is liable for prosecution in case there is a speech made by him which shows disrespect to any late person held in high esteem by members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community.
The bench rejecting the contention that there is disrespect shown in the speech to Justice Varadarajan, a retired SC judge observed:
"We are of the opinion that there is no disrespect shown to Justice Varadarajan. The tenor of the speech is that the members of Adi Dravida Community have benefited because of Kalaignar (Late M. Karunanidhi) and Justice Varadarajan was appointed as a judge of the High Court. Thereafter other members of the Adi Dravida Community were also appointed as judges due to the indulgence shown by Late M. Karunanidhi."
The bench further observed that the High Court committed an error in holding that the MP remarked that people outside Tamil Nadu are idiots, targeting the Scheduled Castes, and also caused humiliation and insult to the Scheduled Castes.
The bench while quashing the criminal proceedings remarked, "A careful analysis of the speech shows that the Appellant indulged in intemperate rant which should have been avoided. However, there is nothing in the speech which attracts an offence under either Section 3 (1) (u) or 3(1)(v) of the SCST Act."
Read Judgment ;
;
SOURCE ; /www.latestlaws.com
0 Comments