No Disrespect Shown To Judge; No Offence Under SC-ST Act Attracted: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against MP RS Bharathi

24th July,2021

No Disrespect Shown To Judge; No Offence Under SC-ST Act Attracted: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against MP RS Bharathi



The Supreme Court suppressed a charge sheet recorded against DMK pioneer and Rajya Sabha MP RS Bharathi under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (anticipation of Atrocities) Act over a discourse made by him. The court saw that there is no lack of regard displayed to Justice Varadarajan. However he enjoyed unrestrained tirade which ought to have been kept away from, there isn't anything in the discourse which draws in an offense under either Section 3 (1) (u) or 3(1)(v) of the SC-ST Act, the seat involving.

Judges L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose noticed. The chargesheet was recorded against the MP after he gave a discourse at a gathering coordinated by the heads of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam for the sake of 'Kalaignar Vasagar Vattam'. He had additionally spoken about the arrangement of Justice Varadarajan as a High Court Judge after Late M. Karunanidhi came to control. He likewise supposedly said that this load of arrangements to people having a place with Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes people group is a result of the contributions of the Dravidian development. The Madras High Court had wouldn't subdue the criminal procedures against him.

Under the watchful eye of the Apex Court, Sr. Adv Kapil Sibal, who showed up for the MP fought that there isn't anything spoken by the MP which brings about disregard to Justice Varadharajan or different Judges of the High Court having a place with Adi Dravida Community. Contradicting this, Sr. Adv Mukul Rohatgi, showed up for the State, and fought that the arraignment ought not be nipped at the bud at this stage. Sr. Adv Geeta Luthra, who addressed the complainant, fought that both Section 3(1)(u) and Section 3(1)(v) of the Act would be drawn in for this situation.

The court noticed that Section 3(1)(u) of the Act would show that it is drawn in just for a situation where an individual not having a place with Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe has through his discourse elevates or endeavours to advance sensation of hostility, scorn or malevolence against individuals from Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe people group. Then again, the discourse demonstrates that individuals from Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes have been profited because of the generosity of Late M. Karunanidhi", the court said. Segment 3(1)(v) of the Act is concerned, an individual is responsible for arraignment on the off chance that there is a discourse made by him which shows disregard to any late individual held in high regard by individuals from the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe people group. Dismissing the dispute that there is disregard displayed in the discourse to Justice Varadarajan, a resigned SC judge, the seat noticed: "We are of the assessment that there is no lack of regard displayed to Justice Varadarajan. The tenor of the discourse is that the individuals from Adi Dravida Community have profited due to Kalaignar (Late M. Karunanidhi) and Justice Varadarajan was selected as an adjudicator of the High Court. From there on different individuals from the Adi Dravida Community were likewise delegated as judges because of the extravagance displayed by Late M. Karunanidhi."

The bench additionally saw that the High Court submitted a mistake in holding that the MP commented that individuals outside Tamil Nadu are boneheads, focusing on the Scheduled Castes, and furthermore made embarrassment and affront the Scheduled Castes.