LawChakra

“After Reviewing the Appeal, No Offence Under SC/ST Act”: HC Dismisses Petition Against Swami Rambhadracharya for Objectionable Remarks

"After Reviewing the Appeal, No Offence Under SC/ST Act": HC Dismisses Petition Against Swami Rambhadracharya for Objectionable Remarks

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

The High court dismissed a plea against Swami Rambhadracharya over his alleged remarks on Scheduled Tribes (ST) and Scheduled Castes (SC). Senior advocate M.C. Chaturvedi, representing the Swami, argued that the special judge’s reasoning and conclusions were both reasonable and justified. The court agreed with the findings, leading to the rejection of the plea.

Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court dismissed an appeal challenging alleged objectionable remarks made by a seer about Dalits during a religious event. The petitioner, Prakash Chandra, appealed after a special judge for SC/ST cases rejected his application against Swami Rambhadracharya’s statements.

Justice Saurabh Srivastava, in dismissing the appeal, remarked,

“After reviewing the grounds raised in this appeal, it is evident that no specific offence under the SC/ST Act, 1989, Section 67 of the IT Act, or other sections of the IPC is applicable.”

Chandra filed the application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, seeking a court directive to register an FIR regarding certain comments made by the seer, which he argued were offensive towards the Scheduled Caste community and violated provisions of the SC/ST Act and IPC.

The SC/ST Act special judge in Prayagraj previously dismissed the application on February 15, 2024, citing maintainability issues. Following this, the petitioner brought the present criminal appeal to the Allahabad High Court.

Senior advocate M.C. Chaturvedi, representing Swami Rambhadracharya, argued that the reasoning and conclusions of the special judge were both reasonable and justified.

He contended that the statements made by Rambhadracharya did not constitute an offense under the SC/ST Act, 1989, or Section 67 of the IT Act, as claimed in the appeal.

Additionally, the state’s legal representative, the additional government advocate, also opposed the appeal, asserting that the special court’s ruling contained no legal errors, and the appeal should be rejected.

After a detailed hearing, the high court dismissed the appeal on October 4.




Exit mobile version