Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Rajasthan High Court has quashed a First Information Report (FIR) registered against actor Shilpa Shetty under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC/ST Act) over the use of word “Bhangi” during a television interview in 2013, also featuring actor Salman Khan. The court observed that celebrities and public figures often speak casually during interviews, while cautioning against imposing criminal liability for non-malicious remarks.

The case arose from a criminal complaint filed in 2017 alleging that the use of word “Bhangi” by the actress hurt the sentiments of the Valmiki Community. The FIR alleged the commission of offences under Sections 153(A) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), dealing with the offence of promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony, and Section 3(1)(r)(u) of SC/ST Act, 1989 for intentionally insulting or intimidating with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.

A Single judge bench comprising Justice Arun Monga, delivered the verdict, finding no evidence of intent to insult or demean the Valmiki community. “Imposing criminal liability for casual or non-malicious statements uttered years ago can lead to a chilling effect…Statements made by Public figures are sometimes exaggerated by unknown persons from public just to gain some media attention. Be that as it may, no one can be held criminally liable as long as there is no malice or intent to harm,” the court stated.

The court noted that the word “Bhangi,” though potentially offensive in certain contexts, could also carry alternative meanings based on its etymology. Derived from the Sanskrit word “Bhanga,” it can mean “broken” or “fragmented” and also refer to “cannabis” or its users in colloquial usage. The court said, “The interpretation of term thus varies across regions. What is offensive in one context might not be so in another, and intent must be judged based on the overall narrative.”

The court further highlighted that celebrities often speak casually during interviews and that their statements are sometimes exaggerated by others for media attention, stating, “it is thus essential to consider the broader context rather than isolating specific words.”

The court also deemed the delay of more than three years in filing the FIR as “fatal”. Additionally, it ruled that the offence under Section 153A of IPC was not made out. “For an offense under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to be established, the presence of mens rea, a deliberate and intentional effort to foster enmity or hatred between distinct religious or social group, is a requisite. However, neither the allegations in the FIR nor its content demonstrate any such intent on the part of the Petitioner to commit the alleged offense under Section 153A,” the court observed.

The court also refused to invoke the offences under SC/ST Act stating, “The FIR does not establish any violation of the objectives of this Act or any intent on the Petitioner’s part to commit atrocities against the SC/ST community. Furthermore, the term “Bhangi,” as allegedly used, lacks any context or intent to inflict harm or oppression upon members of the Valmiki community under the SC/ST Act.”

The court conclusively held, “In light of the absence of essential ingredients for offenses under Section 153A IPC, the failure to adhere to mandatory procedural requirements under Section 196 Cr.P.C., and the lack of applicability of the SC/ST Act, the FIR is patently illegal and deserves to be quashed. The allegations neither substantiate the statutory elements of the cited offenses nor provide any basis for criminal proceedings against the Petitioner.”

 

Cause Title: Shilpa Raj Kundra v State of Rajasthan [S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1600/2018]