Rajasthan HC Quashes SC/ST Case Against Shilpa Shetty, Says Context and Intent Crucial in Such Cases

Last Updated on November 22, 2024 by Amit Patra

Rajasthan High Court has quashed a criminal case filed under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against actress Shilpa Shetty, saying casual statements made by public figures need to be viewed in their entirety and not in isolation. The case was based on a 2013 TV interview in which Shetty had allegedly used the word ‘Bhangi ‘. In 2017, an FIR was filed against her on grounds that the term had hurt the sentiments of the Valmiki community. While allowing the petition filed by Shetty for quashing the case, Justice Arun Monga observed that there was nothing in the FIR and evidence on record to suggest that she had the intention to demean or insult the community.

The Court gave an elaborate etymological account of the word; ‘Bhangi,’ being a derivative of its Sanskrit word ‘Bhanga’ differed in meaning and usage according as the context and the region. The judgment thus clarified that what may be offensive in one context may not necessarily be so in another, and criminal liability requires proof of malicious intent. Notably, the Court observed that public figures often speak casually during interviews, and their statements are sometimes exaggerated by others seeking media attention.

The judgment also considered the inordinate delay in filing the FIR, which proved highly detrimental to the case of the complainant. The Court also said that Section 153A, Indian Penal Code, was not attracted since there was no evidence as to whether the accused promoted enmity between groups based on religion, race, or place of birth. Justice Monga elaborated that hurting the feelings of a community without incitement to violence or public disorder would not make it an offense under Section 153A.

This ruling sets an important precedent by establishing that intent is crucial in cases under the SC/ST Act, context must be considered when interpreting potentially offensive statements, and mere hurt sentiments without malicious intent don’t constitute a criminal offense. The judgment reflects a balanced approach to handling sensitive cases involving public figures and community sentiments, emphasizing the importance of context and intent in determining criminal liability.