The Kerala High Court recently observed that the Malayalam profanity 'son of a prostitute' cannot be considered a casteist slur [Sarath KS v. State of Kerala & Anr.].Justice CS Sudha made the observation with regard to the Malayalam phrase പുലയടി മോനെ (pulayadi mone) which means 'son of a prostitute'."Going by the dictionary meaning, the word "പുലയാടി മോനെ" means son of a prostitute... the same is not a casteist slur," the Court said. .The Court made the observation while considering an appeal moved by a man (appellant) accused of committing offences punishable under the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act).The prosecution's allegation against him was that the appellant along with two others got into a an altercation with someone who belongs to the Pulaya community, a scheduled caste. During the scuffle, the appellant also allegedly called the man (the complainant) 'പുലയാടി മോനെ' or 'son of a prostitute'.All three men were subsequently booked under Section 329(3) (criminal trespass), 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), 118(1) (voluntarily causing hurt) read with 3(5) (crime committed by multiple people with common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). They were also accused of having committed the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act which deal with intentional insults and intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of any SC/ST community. The appellant first sought anticipatory bail from a special court which hears cases under the SC/ST Act. However, his petition was dismissed leading to the present appeal before the High Court..The High Court concurred with the appellant that the abusive phrase cannot be considered as casteist. "All insults or intimidation to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of the victim belonging to the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe," the Court added. From the material on record, the Court noted that the altercation was over a dispute relating to a vehicle owned by the complainant's relative. The Court concluded that prima facie, the offence under the SC/ST Act was not made out. However, the other offences under the BNS are prima facie attracted, the Court opined. Noting that the other accused had already been released on bail, the Court ultimately decided to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant.It was, however, made clear that the Court's observations in the present judgment were made only for the purpose of deciding this appeal. The trial court must decide the case unhampered by the same, the Court said. .The petitioner was represented by advocates Mini VA and Ross Ann Babu.Public Prosecutor Sheeba Thomas appeared for the State. .[Read Judgment]
