Bombay High Court Quashes SC/ST Case Against Man Booked for Remarks About Dr. BR Ambedkar

The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad has quashed a case filed under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against Devendra Rajiv Patil. Patil was accused of making disrespectful remarks about Dr. BR Ambedkar during a telephonic conversation, but the Court found no evidence of such disrespect.

Court’s Observations on the Conversation

The Bench, comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay Deshmukh, observed that the conversation in question did not reveal any disrespect towards Dr. Ambedkar. The Court noted:

"However, coming back to the conversation, as we take it as it is, we find that the said conversation absolutely does not show any disrespect to Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. Rather it is stated that the said caller was asking the informant, as to why he is using the name of Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar when he is not behaving on his footsteps. At one place, it is specifically uttered by the caller that because of them, Baba (Ambedkar) is defamed, he is respecting Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar, but because of people like you the respect in him (Ambedkar) is reduced nowadays."

Background of the Case

The case stemmed from a social media post made by Ravi Baburao Gaikwad, the informant, who had shared objectionable posts on Facebook and WhatsApp criticizing the Brahmin community following a procession on Lord Parshuram's Jayanti in 2019. His posts were strongly critical of the Brahmin community and claimed that such individuals posed a threat to the security of the Indian Constitution.

The accused, Patil, reacted to Gaikwad’s post with a phone call. Gaikwad, initially not identifying himself as a member of the Scheduled Castes, later amended his complaint after obtaining a caste certificate to include charges under the Atrocities Act.

Court’s Ruling on the SC/ST Act

The Bench ruled that Patil’s comments, although critical of Gaikwad, were a natural reaction to Gaikwad’s provocative social media posts. The Court emphasized that:

“Another important fact which we will have to consider is that it was the reaction of a person from the community against whom informant had posted provocative comments, so, that it has to be taken as a natural reaction. Person from only one community then cannot have right to object, if he had done some provocative act.”

The Court also questioned the appropriateness of invoking the SC/ST Act since the original FIR did not mention any caste-based offence.

Private Nature of the Conversation

The Court pointed out that the conversation in question was private and had not been witnessed by any third party. It highlighted that provisions like Section 298 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(u) and (v) of the Atrocities Act should not apply to a private conversation. After considering all aspects, the Court concluded that continuing with the case would be an abuse of the legal process. It quashed the entire proceedings against Patil.