Casteist abuse by politicians more serious: Karnataka HC refuses to quash case against Congress' Siraj Sheikh

The Karnataka High Court recently observed that when casteist abuses are hurled by politicians or their legions, the ensuing indignity assumes a graver dimension [Sirajuddin @ Siraj Sheikh v State of Karnataka].

Justice M Nagaprasanna made the observation while refusing to quash a criminal case filed against Congress leader Siraj Sheikh for allegedly hurling casteist abuses against a political rival and his nephew at three places, including during a political gathering.

"When a politician or their legions hurl caste-laden abuses at a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in a public place, the indignity assumes a graver dimension. It is not merely an insult directed at an individual; it is an affront to the constitutional promise of equal citizenship and an attempt to resurrect, through words of humiliation, a social hierarchy that the Constitution emphatically sought to bury. A democracy cannot permit the public square, meant to be a space of equality, to be converted into an arena of caste humiliation," the Court said.

The Court also lamented that despite constitutional guarantees of equality, the poison of caste continues to be reflected even in the conduct of those in political power.

"The Constitution has banished untouchability and promised equality, dignity and fraternity; yet, regrettably, the poison of caste sometimes finds expression even in the conduct of those who occupy positions of political power," it observed.

The case against Sheikh is tied to a squabble that took place between him and fellow Congress leader Bheema Naik, after Sheikh noticed that his photo was missing on a flex board meant to welcome a District In charge Minister on August 12, 2023.

Days after the quarrel, during the District Minister's visit on August 15, Sheikh is said to have taken objection after Naik was invited to sit in the car in which the Minister was travelling.

Sheikh is alleged to have hurled casteist abuses targetting Naik and his nephew Manjunath SL on account of these incidents.

A third incident occurred when Sheikh allegedly insulted Manjunath and Naik in the premises of a Junior College where a political meeting was being held.

Manjunath eventually filed a criminal case against Sheikh, accusing him of repeatedly hurling casteist abuses at these political gatherings.

After a trial court refused to discharge Sheikh from this case, he moved the High Court seeking relief.

The High Court dismissed Sheikh's plea on August 14, on finding that the allegations against him warranted a full-fledged trial.

The Court rejected Sheikh's argument that no case was made out under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). This provision deals with the offence of intentionally insulting or intimidating a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe with the intent to humiliate them in any place within public view.

The judge noted that this was not a case where Sheikh was unaware of the caste of Naik and his nephew, given that they all knew each other well.

"The parties were not strangers; they were political rivals. The material on record, at this stage, would indicate that the accused was well aware that the complainant/CW-1 belonged to a Scheduled Caste."

The Court further rejected arguments that the alleged remarks were not made in public view or in the direct presence of Naik.

"The abuses are not alleged to have been uttered in the privacy of four walls, away from the gaze or hearing of others... A political rally, by its very nature, is a congregation in the public domain. It is convened to be seen, heard and witnessed by a multitude." it explained.

The Court went on to warn against using casteist language at such political gatherings.

"A political dais cannot be converted into a platform for caste humiliation, nor can the din of political rivalry drown the constitutional guarantee of dignity. Words uttered at such a gathering do not remain confined between the speaker and the person against whom they are directed; they travel to the gathering assembled and acquire a distinctly public character," the Court held.

The remaining question was whether Sheikh had made comments with the intent to humilate Naik and Manjunath. The Court held that this was an aspect that should be examined through a full-fledged trial. The Court concluded that the allegations, prima facie, warranted the conduct of such a trial against Sheikh.

"(Sheikh's alleged) conduct, when it satisfies the ingredients prescribed by law, must therefore be dealt with firmly, for dignity is not a concession bestowed by the powerful upon the marginalised; it is an inviolable constitutional entitlement of every citizen," the Court held.

Senior Advocate Sandesh J Chouta and advocate Ismail M Musba appeared for the Siraj Sheikh.

Additional State Public Prosecutor Anoop Kumar represented the State . Advocate KBK Swamy appeared for the complainant (Manjunath SL).

[Read order]