The Rajasthan High Court quashed a criminal case against actor Shilpa Shetty related to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, stemming from a 2013 interview. Justice Monga found no evidence of intent to insult the Valmiki community. The Court noted context is vital and individuals can’t be criminally liable without malice. The case represents a significant victory for Shetty.
Rajasthan: The Rajasthan High Court recently quashed a criminal case filed under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against actor Shilpa Shetty in connection with a 2013 TV interview. The case, which had lingered since 2017, alleged that Shetty’s use of the word ‘Bhangi’ had offended the sentiments of the Valmiki community.
Justice Arun Monga, while granting relief to Shetty, emphasized that there was no evidence of intent to insult or humiliate the Valmiki community. The Court observed,
“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 delved into the etymology of the word ‘Bhangi’, noting its varied meanings across contexts. “The term ‘Bhangi’ may be offensive in certain contexts, but it can also be used in an unintended or alternatively colloquial manner,” the Court explained.
Derived from the Sanskrit word ‘Bhanga’, it can mean “broken” or “fragmented,” and in some regions, it refers to cannabis or those consuming it. The Oxford Hindi-to-English dictionary and Webster’s English dictionary also assign meanings like “fraud,” “trick,” or “peculiar behavior.”
The Court highlighted the challenges celebrities face, noting their statements are often exaggerated or taken out of context.
“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 judgment stated.
It added,
“Statements made by public figures are sometimes exaggerated by unknown persons from the public just 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.”
The Court also dismissed allegations under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, which concerns promoting enmity between groups.
“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,”
it held.
Read Also: Adani Group Accusations Demand Supreme Court Investigation, Says AAP MP Sanjay Singh
The delay in registering the FIR was also deemed fatal to the complainant’s case.
“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 Court added.
The case was ultimately quashed, marking a significant win for Shetty.
Advocates Prashant Patil, Shakti Pandey, Gopal Sandhu, Palak Saxena, and Atishay Jain represented Shetty, while Public Prosecutor Vikram Rajpurohit appeared for the State.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE