'Bhangi' remark by Yuvraj Singh: Punjab & Haryana High Court quashes IPC charges but SC/ST Act charges to remain

The Punjab & Haryana High Court on Thursday quashed the charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against former Indian cricketer Yuvraj Singh for using casteist slur 'bhangi' [Yuvraj Singh v. State of Haryana]..Justice Amol Rattan Singh, however, refused to quash the first information report (FIR) relating to charges under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC/ST Act), stating that the cricketer had used the term in a pejorative sense."Keeping in view the aims and objectives of the Act, in my opinion if the effect of the word used is causing emotional hurt, humiliation etc. to any members of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, a particular caste name having been used in a derogatory manner, even if the intention of the petitioner was obviously not to actually so hurt any person, yet it would not entitle this court to quash the FIR on that ground," the single-Judge observed. The Court added that unless the investigating agency later arrives at a different conclusion, the FIR under the SC/ST Act cannot be quashed in the interim since a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste community can be hurt by the use of the word. The charges under Sections 153-A (promoting enmity between different groups, acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony) and 153B (imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration) of the Indian Penal Code were ruled as not being made out as the "the petitioner did not intentionally mean to cause any dis-respect or harm or even humiliation to any class of people," the Court said. The judge observed that the word 'bhangi' is normally used in a derogatory sense in northern India..In an Instagram live with current India captain Rohit Sharma, Singh had used the word 'bhangi' to refer to Indian spinner Yuzvendra Chahal's antics at a wedding, which prompted the FIR. Singh had sought quashing of the FIR in his plea, arguing that the complainant misinterpreted the issue, did not have locus standi, and that the ingredients of the offences were not made out.In an earlier order, the High Court had refused to stay the police investigation but ordered that no coercive action be taken against him till it is determined whether the term was used in an offensive, casteist sense.The respondents had in earlier hearings stated that according to a survey conducted by them, the term 'bhangi' is used to refer pejoratively to people of a certain Scheduled Caste community. The complainant had contended that with the kind of stature Singh enjoys, he insulted the entire Dalit community by using such remarks..Counsel for Yuvraj Singh submitted that FIR is not maintainable since the complainant does not fall under the scope of 'victim' as per the Act, since he does not belong to the bhangi caste.It was also alleged that the complaint was malafide and the complainant was a habitual offender and extortionist. It was further argued that the cricketer had used the term to refer to consumers of bhang (hemp). The counsel added that the word used had not resulted in any consequential action against any member of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, with no disturbances in law and order reported. Yuvraj Singh is a charitable individual, would henceforth undertake charity work for Dalits and his utterance was misunderstood, the counsel argued. Counsel for the complainant contended that he is from a Dalit community.He also pointed out that Singh in his apology or petition never mentioned that he had used the term to refer to hemp users. FIRs cannot be quashed merely on the basis of an apology, it was contended, especially since Singh never denied using the word. .The High Court at the outset held that the complainant was a victim as per the SC/ST Act. Even so, it observed that Singh "did not attempt to promote or even also did not intend to promote any disharmony by usage of the phrase looking at the context in which it was used".The Court highlighted the use of the world saala (brother-in-law) in Hindu and Punjabi to remark how in common parlance, many words are used in a derogatory sense even though the actual meaning references something else. Hence, charges under IPC were quashed.However, the petition was dismissed with respect to charges under SC/ST Act. It was left to the police to determine if the ST/ST offences were made out. .Senior Adovcate Puneet Bali and advocates Uday Agnihotri and Sachin Jain, appeared for the petitioner. Additional Advocate General Neeraj Poswal appeared for the State, and advocate Arjun Sheoran appeared for the complainant. [Read judgment]