“Abusive, Derogatory, and an Insult to the Victim”: Kerala High Court Finds Prima Facie Offence Under SC/ST Act, Says “No Legal Provisions Yet to Address Non-Sexual Cyberbullying”
Kiran Raj
The Kerala High Court has held that prima facie materials disclose an offence under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in connection with an edited video targeting a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste. Justice C.S. Sudha noted that the content uploaded was abusive, derogatory, and depicted the informant as a woman of loose morals or sexually promiscuous. The Court stated that such content constituted an insult to the victim and held that an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act was made out based on the materials on record.
The appeal was filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the denial of pre-arrest bail by the Court of Session, Ernakulam, in relation to Crime No. 251 of 2024 registered at Infopark Police Station. The appellant was accused of publishing an edited video targeting the informant, who had earlier filed complaints against various online media platforms. The incident was alleged to be driven by prior enmity and knowledge of the informant’s caste identity.
According to the prosecution, the appellant created the impugned video by downloading footage from a channel named True TV, edited it using mobile devices, and uploaded it through his YouTube channel, “Visal Media,” on 22 June 2022. The video included an interview with the informant’s husband and images originally published by another individual. The content alleged that the informant was involved in immoral activities, described her as a drug addict, and claimed she had deserted her husband.
The prosecution submitted that the acts were committed with intent to insult and defame the informant, a member of a Scheduled Caste. Offences invoked included Sections 354A(i)(iii), 354A(1)(iv), and 509 of the Indian Penal Code; Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000; and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(ii), and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The appellant’s counsel argued that no reference to the informant’s caste was made in the video, and therefore the essential ingredients of Section 3(1)(r) were not satisfied. It was submitted that the bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the Act would not apply in the absence of intent to humiliate based solely on caste. Reliance was placed on the decision in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand [(2020) 10 SCC 710].
The State opposed the grant of bail, submitting that the video was derogatory and defamatory, and its publication was based on caste-motivated targeting. It was also argued that custodial interrogation was necessary for recovery of devices used in editing and uploading the video. The prosecution further informed the Court that notice had been served on the informant, although she had declined to accept it.
The Court first considered the applicability of Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, which penalises intentional transmission of images violating personal privacy. It recorded that “apparently, the materials on record now available before the court do not attract the ingredients of the offence under Section 66E of the IT Act.”
On the question of whether Section 67A was attracted, the Court noted that the provision relates to electronic transmission of sexually explicit conduct. It referred to Majeesh K. Mathew v. State of Kerala [2018 (4) KHC 253], which had drawn upon the UNCITRAL Model Law and United States statutory definitions to explain the meaning of “sexually explicit conduct.” The Court observed that “with the materials available on record, the same is doubtful” and stated that “I refrain from further going into the merits of the said allegation at this stage as the investigation is only at its preliminary stage.”
The Court then examined the video content played in open court. It recorded that the video included personal allegations from the informant’s husband and described the informant as having engaged in immoral conduct, drug use, and multiple relationships. The appellant, in the video, commented on her past conduct, marital relations, and alleged false complaints against another media figure. The Court stated that “there can be no doubt that the content is offensive and derogatory.”
On the question of whether an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act was made out, the Court noted that the appellant did not refer to the informant’s caste in the video. However, the Court recorded: “The content of the video is certainly abusive, derogatory and picturizing or depicting the 2nd respondent/informant as a woman of loose morals/character or sexually promiscuous.” It further observed: “The FIS of the victim also states that the video has been viewed by more than one lakh persons.”
In light of the derogatory nature of the content and the informant’s caste identity, the Court found that the offence under Section 3(1)(r) was prima facie attracted. It recorded that “the trial court was right in finding that bar under Section 18 and 18A of the Act is attracted.”
In a broader context, the Court discussed the phenomenon of online harassment. It recorded: “In the era of social media, individuals often operate under the misconception that the right to freedom of speech and expression allows them to produce any form of content, make unfounded criticisms, issue abusive remarks, or engage in derogatory conduct towards others, all while evading accountability.”
The Court expressed concern over gaps in existing legislation, observing: “There is a lack of comprehensive and effective legislation to combat such misconduct, which, in my view, necessitates the urgent attention of the authorities concerned.” It noted that while amendments to the Indian Penal Code in 2013 had addressed stalking and voyeurism, “there remains a conspicuous absence of legal provisions that directly address the issue of cyberbullying or online harassment, particularly those incidents devoid of any sexual context.” The Court also stated that “despite the enactment of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in 2024, no legal provisions have been introduced to specifically address this form of online harassment.”
The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Sessions Court’s order denying anticipatory bail. It concluded that “an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is certainly made out from the materials on record” and recorded that “I find no grounds for interference into the impugned order.” It also directed that “interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: K. Aboobacker Sidheeque, Advocate; Muhammed Ibrahim Abdul Samad, Advocate; Subin K. Sudheer, Advocate
For the Respondents: Vipin Narayan, Senior Public Prosecutor; K. Nandini, Advocate
Case Title: Fakrudeen K.V. @ Fakrudeen Panthavoor v. State of Kerala and Another
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:24735
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 842 of 2024
Bench: Justice C.S. Sudha
[Read/Download order]
