Private Video, Public Backlash: Bombay High Court Quashes FIR under SC/ST Act for Lack of Intent and Public Targeting
Introduction
In the matter of Kedar Kishor Bhusari v. State of Maharashtrai, the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) (‘BHC’) examined whether a video sent via WhatsApp by a citizen to a civic authority containing references to certain caste-associated localities could attract prosecution under ss. 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘Atrocities Act’). The case raised important questions about the applicability of the Atrocities Act to private communications that later go viral and whether a mere reference to a caste-associated area, without any direct insult or abusive context, can amount to an offence under the Act.
Brief Facts
The applicant, Kedar Kishor Bhusari, is a practicing advocate. On 05.08.2023, he recorded a video near Baliram Peth, Jalgaon, highlighting public health issues caused by uncollected garbage and pigs roaming near the garbage. In the video, he attributed the pigs’ origin to “Bhangiwada” and “Mehtarwada,” areas historically associated with certain Scheduled Caste communities. The applicant sent this video to the Assistant Commissioner of the Jalgaon Municipal Corporation via WhatsApp, with the intent of prompting swift municipal action.
However, the Assistant Commissioner, without careful review, forwarded the video to a municipal WhatsApp group titled “Health Department.” Subsequently, one of the municipal workers further shared the video to a caste-based WhatsApp group, where a member of the Scheduled Caste community respondent No. 2 took offence and lodged an FIR under ss. 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act.
The applicant sought quashing of the FIR and the corresponding proceedings in Special Case No. 232 of 2023, arguing that his communication was civic in nature, with no intent to insult any caste or individual.
Held
The BHC quashed the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant under ss. 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act. It was further observed that for an offence under these provisions to be made out, it must be shown that the accused, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, had intentionally insulted or intimidated a person belonging to such community, and that the act occurred within public view. In the present case, there was no evidence to suggest that any such person was present at the location when the video was recorded, nor was there any indication of a targeted insult directed towards an individual or the community as a whole.
The BHC emphasized that the video was a personal communication from the applicant to a public official, made with the intent of highlighting a civic issue, i.e., uncollected garbage and the nuisance of pigs. The applicant had neither sent the video to any Scheduled Caste individual nor made it public on his own. It was the Assistant Commissioner who, acting independently and without malice, forwarded the video to a WhatsApp group of municipal workers. A further third party shared the video to a community-based group, which led to the FIR. The Hon’ble Court held that the applicant could not be held responsible for the actions of others in forwarding the video beyond its original intended recipient.
Additionally, the Hon’ble Court addressed the respondent’s reliance on a 2003 Government Circular that recommended the use of terms like “Rukhi” or “Valmiki” instead of “Bhangi” or “Mehtar.” It clarified that while the circular advised certain terminology changes for official communications, it did not criminalize the use of the traditional names of localities or castes in private speech, particularly when unaccompanied by intent to insult. The words used by the applicant, though outdated and potentially insensitive in some contexts, were not used in a manner that indicated caste-based animosity or discrimination.
Crucially, it was found that the essential ingredients required to establish offences under ss. 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) were completely absent. The applicant had not committed any act of insult within public view, nor had he abused anyone by caste name. The impugned statement in the video referred to pigs coming from “Bhangiwada” and “Mehtarwada” in a general geographic context and was made to prompt municipal action. There was no evidence that the applicant had any intention to humiliate or intimidate any Scheduled Caste person.
Considering all these facts, the BHC concluded that compelling the applicant to face trial would amount to an abuse of the process of law. As such, the FIR (Crime No. 238 of 2023) and the related Special Case No. 232 of 2023 pending before the Special Judge were quashed and set aside.
Our Analysis
This ruling is a significant reaffirmation of the judicial safeguards required when prosecuting offences under the Atrocities Act. While the Act serves as a vital instrument for protecting historically marginalized communities, it must not be applied in a mechanical or overbroad manner, especially when the essential statutory ingredients such as intent, presence of a victim, and public view are not satisfied. The High Court also reaffirmed a key procedural safeguard: mere forwarding of content by third parties over whom the original sender has no control cannot create liability under criminal law. This has important implications in the age of instant digital communications, where content can spread far beyond its original audience.
Furthermore, the Court carefully distinguished between civic grievance redressal and caste-based insult. The applicant’s use of locality names that are colloquially associated with certain castes was contextual and not derogatory. This reinforces the principle that criminal law should not be invoked to punish language usage unless there is clear evidence of malicious intent or targeting. Importantly, the Court also placed the government circular in its correct legal context acknowledging its advisory nature and limited applicability. This prevents misuse of administrative guidelines as instruments of criminal prosecution, ensuring that state policy remains distinct from criminal liability.
Authored by Ascend Legal Editorial Team. The opinions expressed are personal and do not constitute any legal advocacy.
