The Bombay Excessive Court docket on Tuesday (December 23) whereas quashing the First Data Report (FIR) lodged towards Marathi TV Channel ‘Star Pravah’ for referring to a Scheduled Caste’s identify in considered one of its serial’s episodes, held that mere use or reference to the identify of a caste or tribe can’t represent an offence beneath the stringent Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
A division bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Manjusha Deshpande, was listening to a plea filed by the Channel via its Govt Producer and in addition the Programming Head, who had been booked together with the Director, Scribe and Actor of Marathi serial ‘Laxmi versus Saraswati’ on a criticism filed by one Rahul Gaikwad.
In keeping with Gaikwad, he watched an episode of the serial, which was aired on Star Pravah on August 22, 2012, whereby one of many characters within the present used म्हारा-पोरांची (mhara-poranchi) had been utilized in a dialogue by one the character. This was within the context of heading off evil eye, as regards the main character within the present. The complainant claimed that the phrases in reference to the ‘Mahar’ neighborhood, had been deliberately used with the intention to humiliate him and others, who noticed the episode.
The criticism argued that even when the character, who uttered the dialogue, used the phrases impromptu as the identical weren’t there within the authentic script, but the petitioner Programming Head and Channel together with its Govt Producer may very well be held liable as they too deliberately aired the episode regardless of figuring out that the phrases had been used to humiliate a neighborhood.
The petitioners, nevertheless, identified that the phrases in query had been utilized by one of many actors within the present impromptu and that the stated phrases didn’t discover point out within the authentic script so that they can’t be held to be responsible of any offence as such.
The judges, famous that one of many primary components for constituting an offence beneath the Atrocities Act is that the accused shouldn’t be a member of any Scheduled Caste or Tribe. It famous that the FIR is lodged towards the Channel, which can’t be stated to be an individual belonging to a caste or a tribe, due to this fact, on the rely of primary ingredient itself, the FIR fails, the judges held.
“The assertion of the primary informant and the contents of the FIR at no place even allege that the petitioners herein usually are not members of the scheduled caste or the scheduled tribe. Contemplating that one of many primary components of the offence beneath Part 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act, is that the accused should not be a member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe, it turns into clear that Channel firm might by no means be arraigned as an accused,” the bench held.
Even in accordance with the assertion of the complainant, the judges famous, the objectionable phrases had been uttered by an actor, taking part in a selected character within the serial.
“The precise utterance of the phrases can’t even be attributed to the petitioners earlier than this Court docket. The function of the petitioners earlier than this Court docket of being the Programming Head of the stated Channel and being the Govt Producer of the Channel, was restricted to broadcasting of the serial, the content material creators of which had been all related to the makers of the present. It was sought to be indicated on the a part of the petitioners that the script didn’t comprise the objectionable phrases and it was the actor, who impromptu and on the spur of second uttered these phrases. However, at this stage itself, the aforesaid facet can’t be gone into given that the inquiry, as as to if the script certainly contained the stated phrases or not, may very well be a matter of proof in trial,” the judges defined.
Additional, the judges made it clear that no intention may be attributed to the petitioners earlier than the courtroom as they didn’t utter the stated phrases.
“Mere use or reference to the identify of a caste, included within the listing of scheduled castes or scheduled tribes, can’t in itself represent an offence, except it’s referred to or used deliberately to inflict insult, intimidation or humiliation, on a selected member of a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. Within the current case, it can’t even be alleged that the petitioners earlier than this Court docket uttered the objectionable phrases, a lot much less deliberately uttered such phrases,” the courtroom noticed.
With these observations, the bench quashed the FIR lodged towards the Programming Head and the Govt Producer of Star Pravah.
Look:
Senior Advocates Satish Mane-Shinde and Sanjog Parab together with Advocates Sulabha Rane, Mohan Rao, Nikhil Mane-Shinde Sakshi Baadkar and Sangram Parab appeared for the Petitioners.
Extra Public Prosecutor Sharmila Kaushik represented the State.
Advocates Milind Ingole, Aishwarya Gaikwad and Manisha Bansode represented the Complainant.
Case Title: Shrabani Deodhar vs State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition 4546 of 2013)
Leave a Reply