The Supreme Court ruled that the word “bastard” is not a caste-based slur, criticizing police for wrongly invoking the SC/ST Act. The Court granted anticipatory bail, noting no caste insult was mentioned in the FIR.
The Supreme Court of India has granted anticipatory bail to a 55-year-old man accused of assault and caste-based abuse after finding that the First Information Report (FIR) did not contain any reference to a casteist remark.
A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria noted that it was “rather surprising” that the police had invoked the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) against the accused for using the word “bastard”, which does not amount to a caste-based insult.
The Court found that the Kerala Police appeared to have acted with excessive enthusiasm while adding the SC/ST Act sections to the FIR.
The judges observed that it was this addition that led the Kerala High Court to reject the accused’s anticipatory bail plea in the first place.
The Bench remarked,
“It is rather surprising to note that though there was no allegation of any caste slur made by the complainant in his complaint, the jurisdictional police seems to have acted in zeal to incorporate the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which prima facie swayed in the mind of the High Court to reject the anticipatory bail.”
The case originated from a complaint filed on April 16, when the accused allegedly stopped the complainant on a public road, threatened him, and attacked him with a chopper.
According to the FIR, the accused had called the complainant a “bastard” before hitting him, resulting in bleeding injuries on the complainant’s arms as he tried to defend himself.
Following this, the police registered a case and later added sections of the SC/ST Act, claiming that the word “bastard” was a casteist insult.
The accused, who has no previous criminal record, approached the Kerala High Court seeking anticipatory bail. He argued that there was no mention of any caste-based abuse in the original complaint, and therefore the inclusion of the SC/ST Act provisions was unjustified.
However, the High Court refused his request, holding that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act bars the granting of anticipatory bail in such cases.
The petitioner then moved the Supreme Court, contending that the FIR did not indicate any caste-related remark and that the alleged insult was purely personal in nature.
He also cited the wound certificate, which showed that the complainant was under the influence of alcohol during the incident and that the injuries were minor. The accused further submitted that he was suffering from a heart condition and had fully cooperated with the investigation process.
After reviewing the case, the Supreme Court agreed with the petitioner’s arguments and found that the police had gone beyond the original complaint by invoking the SC/ST Act.
The Bench highlighted that the complaint made at the very beginning by the injured person did not mention any caste slur at all. The Court observed,
“The complaint filed at the first instance by the injured would reveal that he not even whispered about any such caste slur made by the petitioner–accused.”
Based on these findings, the Supreme Court set aside the Kerala High Court’s order and granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The Court made it clear that the misuse of special provisions under the SC/ST Act without proper grounds should be avoided.
Advocates Sriram Parakkat, Anandhu S Nair, Maneesha Sunil Kumar, Bajinder Singh, Sreenath S, and Parthasarathy represented the petitioner. The respondents were represented by advocates Nishe Rajen Shonker, Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar, Santhosh K, Devika AL, and Biju P Raman.
This ruling once again emphasizes the Supreme Court’s stance that serious provisions under the SC/ST Act must not be invoked casually or without evidence of actual caste-based abuse.
The Court’s observations send a strong message that false or exaggerated application of such laws can unfairly deprive individuals of their liberty and should be approached with caution.
Case Title:
Sidhan @ Sidharathan vs. State of Kerala & Anr.
Read Order:
Click Here to Read More Reports On EC
