Kerala High Court refuses to quash SC/ST case against principal who said Dalit teacher had "manufacturing defect"

The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a plea by a college principal seeking to quash proceedings against him under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) for allegedly making caste based derogatory remarks against a faculty member during a college meeting [Dr CM Kusuman v State of Kerala & ors]..The principal had allegedly said that a Dalit faculty member had "manufacturing defect". Justice VG Arun observed that the allegations of caste based humiliation must be analysed in the context in which they were made and in light of the social realities faced by marginalised communities."One cannot also be oblivious of the fact that the tolerance level of persons belonging to the vulnerable sections will not be the same as persons who have not suffered any such ignominy. To put it pithily, only the wearer knows where the shoe pinches. Therefore, while deciding whether an insult or intimidation is on account of the victim belonging to the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe, the context and the scenario is of utmost importance," the judge said..The case arose from a crime registered at the Velloor Police Station in Kottayam based on a complaint filed by Hiran M Prakash, an Assistant Professor in the Department of Journalism at DB College, against the college principal Dr CM Kusuman.According to the complaint, during a staff meeting on February 7, 2022, the petitioner questioned the complainant for typing on his phone and allegedly remarked that he behaved in such a manner due to "manufacturing defect".When the complainant responded by mentioning his parent's respectable background, the petitioner allegedly stated that he knew his family history and that revealing it would embarrass him..Dr Kusuman approached the High Court contending that the alleged remark did not relate to the complainant's caste and hence, would not attract Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act, which penalises intentional insult or intimidation of an SC/ST person in public view. Senior counsel Abraham Vakkanal, appearing for the petitioner, argued that there was no mention of caste in the offending remark and the meeting did not qualify as 'public view' under the Act.He relied on several precedents, including Hitesh Verma v State of Uttarakhand [(2020) 10 SCC 710], to argue that unless the insult was made because of the victim's caste, the offence was not attracted.On the other hand, the counsel for the complainant contended that the remarks were intentionally aimed at the complainant's parentage and caste background and that the setting of the meeting, involving several staff members would qualify as 'public view'..The Court held that the precedents cited by both the petitioner and the complainant made it clear that insult or intimidation must be linked to the caste status of the victim.However, whether the petitioner's alleged remarks were made with such intent and whether the setting in which such remark was made amounted to 'public view', were issues of evidence which cannot be decided at the pre-trial stage.Further, the Court opined that caste-based discrimination is deeply rooted in the society and often happens in subtle ways and people from marginalised communities are affected more by such remarks due to their history of oppression."While deciding this question, one should bear in mind the undeniable fact that the Scheduled Castes in India have faced systemic ignominy like exclusion, untouchability and violence rooted in centuries old caste hierarchy," the Court added.Referring to a previous judgment of the Court in Aji Raj CA v State of Kerala, the Court said that the present issue of whether the staff meeting where the remark was made can be treated as 'in public view', was a matter of evidence.Since such questions need to be examined at trial, the Court said that it cannot conduct a detailed inquiry at this stage and refused to quash the case against the petitioner..Dr CM Kusuman was represented by Senior counsel Abraham Vakkanal along with advocates Paul Abraham Vakkanal, Vineetha Susan Thomas and Roy P Kuriakose. The complainant was represented by advocate Thomas J Anakkallunkal.Senior public prosecutor Pushpalatha MK appeared for the State..[Read Judgment]