Rajasthan High Court quashes SC/ST case against Shilpa Shetty

The Rajasthan High Court recently quashed a criminal case registered under Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against actor Shilpa Shetty [Shilpa Raj Kundra v State of Rajathan].

Shetty was booked in 2017 on a complaint alleging that she had used the word 'Bhangi' in a 2013 TV interview in which actor Salman Khan was also present. 

As per the complaint made to police, the use of the word had allegedly hurt the sentiments of Valmiki community. In 2012, Shetty moved the High Court seeking quashing of the case. 

Justice Arun Monga allowed the petition on November 18 said there was no indication in the First Information Report (FIR) or the accompanying evidence that Shetty intended to demean or insult the Valmiki community.

“At the most, their interview statements, which appear to have been made casually, are being interpreted and taken totally out of context. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act requires that the accused must act with a specific intent to humiliate, insult, or harm members of the SC/ST community,” the Court said.

It further opined that while the term ‘Bhangi’ may be offensive in certain contexts, it can also be used in an unintended or “alternatively colloquial manner”.

The Court proceeded to analyse the word’s etymology and noted that it was derived from the Sanskrit word 'Bhanga', which apart from meaning the one who belongs to an untouchable caste, also means "broken" or "fragmented".

“In another context, Bhanga also refers to cannabis or intoxicants, so someone consuming bhang could also be termed as “bhangi”. As per Oxford Hindi to English dictionary, bhangi also means someone, who consumes Bhang (Bhangar) or even “fraud” or “trick” or “disguise” or even “peculiar or idiosyncratic behaviour”. As per Webster English dictionary alternative meaning assigned is user of Bhang. The interpretation of term thus varies across regions,” it added.

The Court said that what is offensive in one context might not be so in another, and intent must be judged based on the overall narrative.

It further observed that one cannot lose sight of the reality that celebrities and public figures invariably tend to speak in a casual tone during interviews.

It is thus essential to consider the broader context rather than isolating specific words, the Court underscored.

Further, the Court also said that statements made by public figures are sometimes exaggerated by certain people 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,” it said.

The Court also found the delay in registering the FIR fatal to the complainant’ case. It also ruled that the offence under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code was not made out.

“In the present case, there is no allegation suggesting the promotion of enmity between groups based on religion, race, or place of birth. A plain reading of the FIR reveals no reference or indication of such promotion, nor do its contents imply it,” it reasoned.

On the allegation that the sentiments of individuals belonging to the Valmiki community had been hurt, the Court said,

“I am of the view that merely offending or hurting the feelings of one community or group, without any incitement, does not satisfy the requirements of Section 153A. The sine qua non for invoking Section 153A IPC is the accused's intent to incite public disorder or instigate violence between distinct communities. In this case, there is no allegation or evidence that the Petitioner harbored such intent.”

Accordingly, the Court quashed the FIR registered at Police Station Kotwali Churu with respect to Shetty.

Advocates Prashant Patil, Shakti Pandey, Gopal Sandhu, Palak Saxena and Atishay Jain represented the petitioner.

Public Prosecutor Vikram Rajpurohit represented the State.

[Read Judgment]