Pranav B Prem

The Kerala High Court has ruled that the Malayalam phrase 'Pulayadi Mone,' which translates to 'son of a prostitute,' does not constitute a casteist slur under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). Justice C.S. Sudha made the observation while granting pre-arrest bail to an accused in a case involving alleged caste-based abuse.

Case Background

The case arose from an altercation involving the appellant (the third accused) and two individuals belonging to the Pulaya community. The informant claimed that the accused used the term 'Pulayadi Mone' during the incident, along with other physical and verbal abuses. The allegations included offenses under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, which pertain to intentional insults or intimidation and caste-based abuse in public view. The Special Court for SC/ST Act cases dismissed the appellant's plea for pre-arrest bail, prompting an appeal to the High Court.

Observations by the Court

1. Meaning of the Term: Justice Sudha clarified that, based on its dictionary meaning, 'Pulayadi Mone' translates to 'son of a prostitute' and not a caste-based insult. The court stated that the term does not specifically reference or target any caste. Justice C S Sudha observed thus, “Going by the dictionary meaning, the word പുലയടി മോനെ means son of a prostitute. That being so, the learned counsel for the appellant/A3 is right in saying that the same is not a casteist slur.”

2. Requirements for Offense Under SC/ST Act:

   • The court noted that for an act to constitute an offense under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, the insult or intimidation must be directly related to the victim’s caste.

   • Merely being a member of a Scheduled Caste does not suffice to invoke the provisions of the SC/ST Act. The insult must be aimed at humiliating the victim due to their caste identity.

3. Public View Requirement: The court emphasized that the alleged abuse occurred in the complainant’s courtyard and was not witnessed by others. Since the abuse was not in public view, it failed to meet the criteria for an offense under Section 3(1)(s) of the Act.

4. Context of the Dispute: The incident stemmed from a vehicle-related disagreement, not the caste identity of the complainant. The court observed that the altercation appeared to be personal rather than caste-motivated.

Ruling

The High Court granted pre-arrest bail to the third accused, stating that:

• There was insufficient material to suggest that the alleged abuses were intended to humiliate the complainants based on their caste.

• The altercation occurred in a private setting, and the public view requirement for invoking Section 3(1)(s) was not met.

• The primary issue was a personal dispute over a vehicle rather than caste-based animosity.

Court stated, “All insults or intimidation to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of the victim belonging to the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. The object of the Act is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes as they are denied number of civil rights. Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of the Society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment.

Key Legal Precedents

The court referred to landmark judgments, including:

• Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand: The Supreme Court held that the insult or intimidation must be directly related to the victim's caste identity.

• Khuman Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh: The court reiterated that mere membership in a Scheduled Caste is insufficient to establish an offense under the SC/ST Act unless the act is explicitly caste-motivated.

Cause Title: Sarath K S v State of Kerala

Case No: CRL.A NO. 2385 OF 2024

Date: January-14-2025

Bench: Justice C.S. Sudha

[Read/Download order]