Rajasthan High Court Quashes SC/ST Act Case Against Shilpa Shetty Over Use of ‘Bhangi’

Key Highlights

• The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a 2013 complaint under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against Bollywood actress Shilpa Shetty for using the word “Bhangi” during a television interview.
• The court ruled there was no malicious intent or evidence of an intention to insult or demean the Valmiki community.
• It emphasized the need to evaluate public statements in their broader context, particularly for casual remarks by public figures.

Court’s Observations

1. No Mens Rea (Intent to Commit Offense):
   The court found no indication in the FIR or accompanying evidence that Shetty intended to harm or humiliate the Valmiki community. Casual remarks cannot be criminalized without evidence of specific intent.
2. Context Matters:
   The court acknowledged that words used casually, especially by public figures during interviews, could be misunderstood or exaggerated. Isolated interpretation of words without considering the context is inappropriate.
3. Understanding the Term ‘Bhangi’:
   • The term can have varied meanings depending on context.
   • Its Sanskrit root “Bhanga” means “broken” or “fragmented,” and it can also refer to users of intoxicants like cannabis or behaviors that are peculiar or fraudulent.
   • The court highlighted that offensive interpretation depends on usage and intent.
4. Exaggeration and Media Attention:
   The court criticized how public figures’ statements are sometimes blown out of proportion by individuals for personal or media gain.

Background

The case originated in 2017 when a complaint was lodged by Ashok Panwar alleging that Shilpa Shetty and Salman Khan used the term “Bhangi” during a TV interview, allegedly hurting the sentiments of the Valmiki community.

Legal Precedent

The court reiterated that under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, a specific intent to insult or humiliate members of the SC/ST community must be established. Casual, unintended remarks do not meet this threshold.

Conclusion

This ruling underscores the importance of contextual analysis in determining the intent behind statements made by public figures. The judgment also reflects the balance needed between protecting community sentiments and preventing the misuse of legal provisions to target individuals without evidence of malicious intent.