Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala
“When Criticism of a Public Figure Doesn't Become a Caste Atrocity”
TL;DR
The Supreme Court held that Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 does NOT impose an absolute bar on anticipatory bail. When the allegations in an FIR do not prima facie make out an offence under the Act, the bar under Section 18 does not apply. The Court emphasized that mere insult to a person who happens to belong to SC/ST is not sufficient—the insult must be "on the ground" or "for the reason" that the person belongs to SC/ST.
The Bottom Line
Criticizing or even insulting a public figure who belongs to SC/ST community is NOT automatically an offence under the SC/ST Act. The prosecution must show that the insult was BECAUSE of the person's caste, not merely that the person happens to belong to SC/ST.
Case Timeline
The journey from FIR to Supreme Court verdict
FIR Registered
FIR No. 899/2023 registered at Elamakkara Police Station under SC/ST Act and Kerala Police Act
FIR Registered
FIR No. 899/2023 registered at Elamakkara Police Station under SC/ST Act and Kerala Police Act
Anticipatory Bail Rejected
Special Court for SC/ST Act rejected anticipatory bail application citing Section 18 bar
Anticipatory Bail Rejected
Special Court for SC/ST Act rejected anticipatory bail application citing Section 18 bar
High Court Dismissal
Kerala High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding Special Court order
High Court Dismissal
Kerala High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding Special Court order
Supreme Court Judgment
Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside High Court order, granted protection from arrest
Supreme Court Judgment
Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside High Court order, granted protection from arrest
The Story
Shajan Skaria, a journalist running a YouTube channel, published several videos criticizing P.V. Srinijan, an MLA from Kunnathunad constituency in Kerala. The videos alleged corruption, misuse of power in sports administration, and connections to illegal activities. The MLA's constituency is reserved for Scheduled Castes.
The complainant (MLA) alleged that the videos were uploaded with the intention to humiliate him because he belongs to the Pulaya community (a Scheduled Caste). An FIR was registered under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(u) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, along with Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act.
Apprehending arrest, Shajan Skaria applied for anticipatory bail before the Special Court, which was rejected citing Section 18 of the SC/ST Act that bars anticipatory bail. The Kerala High Court also dismissed his appeal, holding that prima facie materials existed to attract the offence.
The journalist then approached the Supreme Court, arguing that his criticism was of a public figure's conduct, not an attack based on caste.
Legal Issues
Click each question to reveal the Supreme Court's answer
Arguments
The battle of arguments before the Supreme Court
Petitioner
Vihaan Kumar
No intention to insult based on caste
The appellant merely stated facts gathered through research about a public figure's conduct without mentioning the complainant's caste or community.
No caste reference in the videos
A perusal of the telecast makes it clear that the appellant did not refer to the caste or community of the complainant. Even if defamatory, it doesn't attract SC/ST Act.
Section 3(1)(u) not attracted
The complainant has not alleged that the appellant promoted feelings of enmity against SC/ST members as a class. Criticism of an individual is not the same as promoting hatred against a community.
Prathvi Raj Chauhan principle
If the complaint does not make out a prima facie case under the Act, the bar under Section 18 does not apply.
Respondent
State of Haryana
Knowledge of caste status
The appellant knew the complainant belongs to SC community as he was elected from a reserved constituency. The videos were uploaded with this knowledge.
Deliberate humiliation
The false and derogatory remarks were spread with full awareness of the complainant's SC status, constituting intentional humiliation.
Pattern of targeting
The appellant has singled out the complainant and even attacked his father-in-law (former CJI) who also belongs to SC community.
Section 18 bar applies
Once allegations prima facie attract the Act, anticipatory bail cannot be granted due to the absolute bar under Section 18.
Court's Analysis
How the Court reasoned its decision
The Supreme Court conducted a comprehensive analysis of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act and the essential ingredients of Section 3(1)(r). The Court emphasized that the Act was enacted to protect SC/ST members from caste-based atrocities, not to shield public figures from criticism. The Court applied principles of strict construction of penal statutes and held that the nexus between the alleged insult and the victim's caste identity must be established.
Mere knowledge of the fact that the victim is a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is not sufficient to attract Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989. The offence must have been committed against the person on the ground or for the reason that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
Establishes the crucial distinction between knowledge of caste and caste-based motivation.
Is it the case of the complainant that had he not belonged to a Scheduled Caste, the appellant would not have levelled the allegations? The answer lies in the question itself.
Provides a simple test to determine if the offence is caste-based.
A penal statute must receive strict construction. Unless penalties are imposed in clear terms, they are not enforceable.
Reinforces that criminal provisions must be interpreted strictly in favor of the accused.
The High Court may be right in observing that the intention of the appellant could have been to insult and humiliate the complainant but the High Court failed to consider whether such insult or humiliation was on account of or for the reason that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste.
Points out the critical error in the High Court's reasoning.
The Verdict
Relief Granted
The appellant was granted protection from arrest. If arrested, he shall be released on bail. The FIR and investigation continue, but the appellant cannot be detained pending trial.
Directions Issued
- In the event of arrest, the appellant shall be released on bail subject to conditions imposed by the Investigating Officer
- The appellant to cooperate with the investigation
Key Legal Principles Established
Section 18 of SC/ST Act does not impose an absolute bar on anticipatory bail—it applies only when prima facie case under the Act is made out.
For Section 3(1)(r), the insult must be "on the ground" or "for the reason" of caste, not merely with knowledge of caste.
Mere knowledge that victim belongs to SC/ST is insufficient; the nexus between offence and caste identity must be established.
Criticism of a public figure's conduct does not become caste atrocity merely because the person belongs to SC/ST.
Section 3(1)(u) requires promoting enmity against SC/ST as a class, not criticism of an individual member.
Penal statutes must be strictly construed; ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the accused.
Courts must examine whether the alleged offence would have been committed even if the victim did not belong to SC/ST.
The test is: Would the accused have acted the same way if the victim belonged to a different caste?
Key Takeaways
What different people should know from this case
- The SC/ST Act protects against caste-based discrimination, not against all criticism of SC/ST members.
- If you criticize a public figure who happens to be SC/ST, it's not automatically a crime under SC/ST Act.
- The prosecution must prove that the insult was BECAUSE of caste, not just that the person is SC/ST.
- You can seek anticipatory bail even in SC/ST Act cases if no prima facie case exists.
- Journalists and citizens can criticize public figures regardless of their caste, as long as the criticism is not caste-based.
- If falsely accused under SC/ST Act, you can challenge the FIR by showing no caste-nexus exists.
Legal Framework
Applicable laws and provisions
Constitutional Provisions
Article 19(1)(a)
Constitution of India
“All citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression.”
Relevance: Protects the right to criticize public figures; must be balanced with anti-discrimination laws.
Article 21
Constitution of India
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
Relevance: Personal liberty cannot be curtailed without proper application of law.
Statutory Provisions
Section 3(1)(r)
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
“Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view...”
Relevance: Core provision at issue—requires intent to humiliate on the ground of caste.
Section 3(1)(u)
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
“By words either written or spoken or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise promotes or attempts to promote feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will against members of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes.”
Relevance: Requires promoting enmity against SC/ST as a class, not individual criticism.
Section 18
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
“Nothing in Section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act.”
Relevance: Bar on anticipatory bail—Court held this applies only when prima facie case exists.
Section 438
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
“Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest.”
Relevance: Anticipatory bail provision that Section 18 of SC/ST Act restricts.
Related Cases & Precedents
Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand
cited(2020) 10 SCC 710
Held that offence under Section 3(1)(r) is not established merely because victim is SC/ST—there must be intention to humiliate for the reason of caste.
Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of Uttar Pradesh
cited2023 SCC OnLine SC 668
Every insult or intimidation does not amount to offence under SC/ST Act unless targeted at victim because of caste membership.
Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India
cited(2020) 4 SCC 727
If complaint does not make out prima facie case under SC/ST Act, the bar under Section 18 does not apply.
Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra
cited(2018) 6 SCC 454
Discussed safeguards against misuse of SC/ST Act; later modified by constitutional amendment.
Khuman Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
cited(2019) 20 SCC 54
Discussed the scope and application of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act.
Watch & Learn
Video explanations in multiple languages
Frequently Asked Questions
Explore Related Cases
More case summaries on similar legal topics
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana
2025 INSC 162
The Case That Made Silence During Arrest Unconstitutional
Omkar Gond v. Union of India
2024 INSC 775
Disability Percentage Cannot Automatically Deny Your Dream of Becoming a Doctor
Just Rights for Children v. S. Harish
2024 INSC 714
Watching Child Pornography is NOT Just "Moral Decay" — It's a Serious Crime
Surya Vadanan v. State of Tamil Nadu
(2015) 5 SCC 450
When Borders Cannot Shield a Parent Who Flees with Children
DISCLAIMER: This case summary is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, please consult a qualified advocate. JurisOptima is not responsible for any actions taken based on this information.
Facing aSimilar Situation?
Our advocates can help you understand how this judgment applies to your case.