ARVIND KEJRIWAL vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 2024

ARVIND KEJRIWAL vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 2024

Case Title and Citation: SHAJAN SKARIA V. THE STATE OF KERALA 2024 INSC 625 (23 August 2024)

Factual Background

The Appellant, Mr. Shajan Skaria, published a video on YouTube on May 24, 2023, leveling various allegations, including corruption, against the Complainant, Mr. P.V. Srinijan. The Complainant is a Member of the Kerala Legislative Assembly (MLA) representing a constituency reserved for members of the Scheduled Castes. The video’s content included accusations that the Complainant was a “mafia don” involved in illegal activities, obstructing development, and causing the exit of an industry from the state. The Complainant subsequently filed a written complaint alleging that the video was published specifically to abuse and insult him, knowing he was a member of the Scheduled Caste (Pulaya Community). A First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the Appellant under Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(u) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC and ST Act). Both the Special Judge and the Kerala High Court rejected the Appellant’s application for anticipatory bail, asserting that the FIR prima facie attracted the offenses under the SC and ST Act, thereby activating the statutory bar in Section 18.

Issue(s)

1. Whether Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, imposes an absolute bar that completely restricts courts from granting anticipatory bail.
2. Whether the allegations made by the Appellant in the video disclosed a prima facie case constituting the offenses of intentional insult/humiliation (Section 3(1)(r)) and promotion of enmity (Section 3(1)(u)) under the SC and ST Act.

Decision of the Supreme Court

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed that anticipatory bail be granted to the Appellant. The Court held that the bar under Section 18 of the SC and ST Act is not absolute, and that the lower courts erred because a prima facie case under the specific provisions of the Act was not established in the FIR.

Reason for the decision

The Court provided extensive reasoning regarding the scope of Section 18 and the interpretation of the key offenses under the SC and ST Act:

1. Section 18 Bar is Conditional: The Court affirmed that the bar under Section 18 of the SC and ST Act applies only in cases where prima facie materials exist pointing toward the commission of an offense under the Act. The remedy of anticipatory bail is barred only when the accusation is strong enough to warrant a “valid arrest” under Section 41 read with Section 60A of the CrPC.
2. Test for Prima Facie Case: Courts must apply a judicial mind to determine if the complaint’s narration of facts discloses the essential ingredients required to constitute an offense under the Act. If, based on a first impression, the necessary ingredients are absent, the Section 18 bar does not apply.
3. Ingredients of Section 3(1)(r) Not Met: An offense under Section 3(1)(r) requires that the intentional insult or intimidation must be made with the intent to humiliate the victim for the reason that they belong to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community. Merely knowing the victim’s caste is insufficient. The Court found that the Appellant’s allegations were aimed at maligning and defaming the Complainant due to their personal and inimical relationship (or political rivalry), and not for the reason of his caste identity.
4. Ingredients of Section 3(1)(u) Not Met: The offense under Section 3(1)(u) concerns promoting enmity, hatred, or ill-will against members of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes as a group. Since the Appellant’s video targeted only the Complainant as an individual, and not the Scheduled Caste community generally, this provision was not prima facie attracted.
5. Constitutional Principle: The Court emphasized that pre-arrest bail is a significant concomitant of personal liberty. Given the principle of strict construction for penal statutes, taking any other view would be “unreasonable, oppressive and not in tune with the consecrated principles of our Constitution”.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that the High Court improperly applied the Section 18 bar because the factual allegations, when reviewed, did not satisfy the essential legal requirement that the insult or intimidation was committed on the ground or for the reason of the Complainant’s caste identity. The court therefore granted conditional pre-arrest bail to the Appellant.