Aurangabad: The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, has quashed a case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against a man who was accused of making remarks over the phone about the diminishing respect for Dr. BR Ambedkar. The court ruled that the conversation in question did not amount to disrespect toward the Dalit leader.
A division bench comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay Deshmukh dismissed the case against the accused, Devendra Rajiv Patil, stating that his telephonic conversation with the complainant, Ravi Baburao Gaikwad, lacked any derogatory intent towards Dr. Ambedkar.
The case originated from a social media post made by Gaikwad on May 8, 2019, following a procession celebrating Lord Parshuram’s Jayanti. Gaikwad’s posts on Facebook and WhatsApp contained strong criticism of the Brahmin community, alleging that such processions were an endorsement of “terrorist” activities and could pose a threat to the Indian Constitution.
Patil, upon seeing the post, called Gaikwad and expressed his discontent. During the conversation, Patil reportedly questioned why Gaikwad invoked Dr. Ambedkar’s name when his actions did not align with Ambedkar’s principles. He further stated that people like Gaikwad were responsible for the declining respect for Ambedkar in society.
The court examined the conversation and found that Patil’s remarks did not indicate any form of disrespect toward Dr. Ambedkar. Instead, the judges observed that Patil was defending Ambedkar’s legacy and merely criticizing Gaikwad’s use of his name.
“The said conversation absolutely does not show any disrespect to Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. Rather, the caller (Patil) was questioning the informant (Gaikwad) on why he was using Dr. Ambedkar’s name while not following his principles. At one point, it is specifically stated that because of people like him, Ambedkar’s respect is diminishing,” the court noted.
The court also emphasized that Gaikwad’s complaint was originally filed under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) but was later amended to include charges under the SC/ST Act after he obtained a caste certificate. The judges questioned the legitimacy of this amendment, observing that Gaikwad had initially identified as a ‘Navbauddha’ but later changed his caste status to fit the legal requirements of the Act.
“The reaction of a person from a community against whom the informant had made provocative statements must be seen as natural. If one community raises an objection, it does not automatically make the reaction of another community unlawful,” the bench stated.
Furthermore, the court pointed out that the conversation was private and did not involve any third party, making it an unsuitable case under the Atrocities Act. “The intention behind the Atrocities Act is not to criminalize private telephonic conversations unless they are heard by a third party or publicly disseminated,” the judgment read.
Advocate SS Varma, representing Patil, argued that the charges were based on a misrepresentation of facts and that Gaikwad’s complaint was a misuse of the legal process. He pointed out that Patil had not insulted or demeaned Ambedkar but had only reacted to Gaikwad’s provocative posts.
Additional Public Prosecutor SA Gaikwad, representing the State, and Advocate PB Waghmare, representing Gaikwad, contended that Patil’s comments were offensive to the dignity of Scheduled Caste communities and warranted legal action. However, the court found no direct insult toward Ambedkar or any deliberate attempt to incite disharmony.
Calling the case an abuse of legal provisions, the Bombay High Court quashed the entire proceedings against Patil. The judgment reaffirmed the need for mutual respect among communities and cautioned against the misuse of legal protections for personal or political gain.
