Bombay High Court quashes SC/ST case against man booked for remarks about Dr. BR Ambedkar

The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad on Wednesday quashed a case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against a man who allegedly made remarks over the phone about the diminishing respect for Dr. BR Ambedkar because of people like the informant [Devendra Rajiv Patil v State of Maharashtra]. .The case, initially filed under sections of the Indian Penal Code, was later amended to include charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. A Bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay Deshmukh, while quashing the case, observed that the telephonic conversation in question did not reveal any disrespect to Dr. Ambedkar. "However, coming back to the conversation, as we take it as it is, we find that the said conversation absolutely does not show any disrespect to Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. Rather it is stated that the said caller was asking the informant, as to why he is using the name of Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar when he is not behaving on his footsteps. At one place, it is specifically uttered by the caller that because of them, Baba (Ambedkar) is defamed, he is respecting Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar, but because of people like you the respect in him (Ambedkar) is reduced nowadays," the Court noted. The Bench further held that the conversation did not depict any intention to disrespect or disturb harmony between communities..The case stemmed from a social media post made by Ravi Baburao Gaikwad, the informant, who had shared objectionable posts on Facebook and WhatsApp about the Brahmin community after witnessing a procession on Lord Parshuram's Jayanti on May 8, 2019. The posts were strongly critical of the Brahmin community, stating that the procession was a show of support for “terrorist” activities by Brahmins. Gaikwad’s posts further claimed that if such Brahmin individuals were not stopped, the security of the Indian Constitution would be at risk. This provoked strong reactions, including a phone call from the accused, Devendra Rajiv Patil, who expressed his discontent over the post. Gaikwad, who did not initially identify as a member of the Scheduled Castes, later amended his complaint to include charges under the Atrocities Act after obtaining a caste certificate. .The Bench noted that Patil’s comments, though critical of Gaikwad, did not amount to an offence under the SC/ST Act as it was only a natural reaction to the posts he had made. “Another important fact which we will have to consider is that it was the reaction of a person from the community against whom informant had posted provocative comments, so, that it has to be taken as a natural reaction. Person from only one community then cannot have right to object, if he had done some provocative act. There has to be reciprocal respect for persons amongst all the communities and castes," the Court said. The Court emphasized that mutual respect is fundamental, especially when sensitive topics are raised in public forums like social media..Person from only one community then cannot have right to object, if he had done some provocative act.Bombay High Court.The Bench also questioned the appropriateness of invoking the SC/ST Act since the original FIR did not mention any caste-based offence. Gaikwad had initially claimed that he was from the ‘Navbauddha’ caste but later presented a caste certificate identifying himself as a member of a scheduled caste community, leading to the amendment of the charges. The defense argued that this change in the complaint was based on misrepresentation and suppression of facts, and that the charges under the SC/ST Act were unjustified. The Court also took issue with the private nature of the conversation, stating, "Here, in this case, the conversation was on a phone call, which the informant says that he has recorded. Nobody else has heard any of the conversation when it was going on. The intention behind enacting Section 298 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 3(1)(u) and (v) of the Atrocities Act appears to be not to take cognizance of a private conversation (which is not heard by a third person or the telephonic conversation)..On the other hand, Gaikwad’s counsel argued that Patil’s comments were deeply offensive, not only to Dr Ambedkar’s legacy but also to the dignity of the Scheduled Caste communities. It was contended that such remarks should be penalized as they were intended to insult and provoke. However, the Court found no evidence of direct disrespect to Dr Ambedkar or a deliberate intention to disturb public harmony.The Court concluded that continuing with the case would be an abuse of the legal process. In light of the observations, the Court quashed the entire proceedings against Patil..Advocate SS Varma with advocate SS Ladda appeared for Patil.Additional Public Prosecutor SA Gaikwad appeared for the State.Advocate PB Waghmare appeared for the complainant-Gaikwad..[Read Order]