Supreme Court Clarifies SC-ST Act's Applicability

The Supreme Court ruled that an offence under the SC-ST Act is not established merely based on the victim's caste unless there is intent to humiliate. This decision came while granting anticipatory bail to YouTuber Shajan Skaria, who was accused of making defamatory remarks against MLA P V Sreenijin.

The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that an offence under the SC-ST Act is not established merely by the victim's membership in a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, unless there is an intention to humiliate. The judgment came from a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra while granting anticipatory bail to YouTuber Shajan Skaria.

Skaria, who runs the 'Marunadan Malayali' channel, challenged the Kerala High Court's denial of anticipatory bail in a case filed by MLA P V Sreenijin. Sreenijin alleged that Skaria intentionally humiliated him through a YouTube video, prompting FIR under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The court clarified that merely belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Tribe does not automatically invoke Section 3(1)(r) of the Act unless the intent is caste-based humiliation. Instead, Skaria's actions were deemed defamatory and fall under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.

The top court emphasized that intentional insults rooted in historical caste-based ideas or untouchability practices could be punishable under the Act. However, the video in question targeted the complainant individually and not the Scheduled Castes or Tribes as a community.