Sathyabhama, in an online interview, had allegedly made derogatory remarks about Ramakrishnan’s appearance including the colour of his skin.
Justice K Babu said the terms used by Sathyabhama were intended to insult Ramakrishnan based on his Dalit background.
“The prosecution could prima facie establish that the appellant intentionally insulted the de facto complainant with intent to humiliate him in public view on account of his belonging to Scheduled Caste Community,” the Court said.
It also observed that the interview would fall under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act as being in ‘public view’ because it was accessible to everyone on YouTube.
The Court also asked whether exclusion and discrimination based on caste identity can be allowed to persist in a democracy committed to equality.
“It is to address problems of a segmented society, that express provisions of the Constitution which give effect to the idea of fraternity, or bandhutva referred to in the Preamble, and statutes like the Act, have been framed. These underline the social — rather collective resolve — of ensuring that all humans are treated as humans, that their innate genius is allowed outlets through equal opportunities and each of them is fearless in the pursuit of her or his dreams. The question which each of us has to address, in everyday life, is can the prevailing situation of exclusion based on caste identity be allowed to persist in a democracy which is committed to equality and the rule of law?”, the judge added.
Source: Barandbench
