The Bombay High Court remarked about growing sensitivity around caste issues. It said that people strongly defend their own caste but do not always respect others. The court pointed out that this attitude creates division in society. It stressed the need for mutual respect to maintain harmony.
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court recently remarked on the increasing sensitivity surrounding caste issues, noting that while individuals are often protective of their own caste, they frequently show little respect for others.
The court made these observations while quashing a case against Devendra Patil, who was accused of defaming Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, and reprimanding another individual for a social media post targeting the Brahmin community.
Also Read: Madras High Court: No Caste Can Own a Temple or Control Its Administration
In its order, the Aurangabad division bench, consisting of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay Deshmukh, stated,
“Not every social media post or comment requires a reaction; there are more refined ways to express dissent.”
The court cancelled the proceedings and FIR filed against Patil in August 2019 by the Daulatabad police under the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The complaint alleged that Patil had confronted the complainant over a social media post about the Brahmin community, during which he supposedly insulted both the complainant and Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar.
Also Read: Legal Framework to Combat Caste Discrimination in India: Laws, Protections, and Reforms
However, the court found that the conversation did not disrespect Dr. Ambedkar. Instead, the accused questioned why the complainant invoked Ambedkar’s name when he did not follow his principles, suggesting that individuals like the complainant were diminishing Ambedkar’s respect.
The court concluded,
“This conversation did not show any disrespect to Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar or indicate an intention to disrupt harmony between the two communities.”
It emphasized that the accused was merely responding to a provocative post made by the complainant targeting the Brahmin community.
The court further stated,
“A person from only one community cannot claim the right to object when they themselves engage in provocative behavior. Reciprocal respect among all communities and castes is essential, as this is the essence of the constitutional framework.”
It noted that sensitivity to one’s own caste often comes at the expense of respect for others, warning that without mutual restraint and efforts to foster harmony, such incidents may escalate.
Highlighting that not every objectionable comment necessitates a reaction, Finally, the bench remarked,
“There are more sophisticated ways to express dissent regarding provocative posts,”
Case Title: Devendra Rajiv Patil v State of Maharashtra