The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a plea seeking the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against Hindu spiritual leader and Padma Vibhushan awardee, Swami Rambhadracharya over allegedly objectionable comments against scheduled caste communities [Prakash Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 others].
Justice Saurabh Srivastava opined none of the alleged offences either under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 or Section 67 of Information Technology Act (IT Act) was made out against the Hindu seer.
"It is crystal clear that no specific offence under Sections 120B, 153A, 153B, 295A, 298, 500, 506 IPC along with Sections 3(1)(r)(q)(u)(v) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, 1989 and Section 67 of IT Act is attracted for taking cognizance over the application preferred by appellant and the same was rightly dismissed on the grounds of maintainability," the Court said in its October 4 order.
In January this year, comments reportedly made by Swami Rambhadracharya on "those who do not worship Lord Ram" went viral on social media and drew criticism. He later reacted by asserting that his comments were not casteist.
In February this year, a trial court in Prayagraj had dismissed a plea by one Prakash Chandra to register a criminal complaint against Swami Rambhadracharya. This plea had been filed by Chandra in the form of an application under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
After the trial court dismissed the application as not maintainable, Chandra filed an appeal before the High Court.
Chandra alleged that the priest had made remarks that warranted the initiation of criminal proceedings for the offences of criminal conspiracy, causing enmity between groups, making malicious insults, causing religious distress, defamation and criminal intimidation under the IPC along with offences under the SC/ST Act and for the offence of publishing/ transmitting offensive material under the IT Act.
In its October 4 ruling, the High Court upheld the trial court's dismissal of the complaint on the ground of maintainability. It held that Chandra could not have sought the filing of a criminal case in this matter under Section 156(3) of CrPC.
It reasoned that the protection available under the SC/ST Act is personal in nature, and that an application under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) could not have been filed by the appellant on behalf of a community at large.
"The pious intention of the legislation for protecting the interest and safeguarding the measures of protection for community at large specifically Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes community, is that, if any damage has been committed by some another person who does not belong to the community of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, the Act ensures personal protection espousing the rights available to the person but for community at large the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C is not at all maintainable," the High Court observed, in this regard.
Chandra's appeal was opposed by Swami Rambhadracharya as well as the State of Uttar Pradesh (respondents).
They argued that statements made by the Swami during a religious event could be interpreted in many ways, but did not attract any of the offences alleged by the appellant.
The Court agreed with the submissions of the respondents and held that the trial court's decision to reject the plea for registering a criminal complaint was correct.
Therefore, it dismissed the appeal.
Advocate Braj Mohan Singh appeared for the appellant (Prakash Chandra).
Additional Government Advocate Yogesh Kumar Singh appeared for the State.
Senior Advocate Mahesh Chandra Chaturvedi and advocate Vineet Sankalp appeared for Swami Rambhadracharya.
[Read Order]