The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Thursday dismissed charges brought against former Indian cricketer Yuvraj Singh under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for using the casteist epithet "bhangi" [Yuvraj Singh v. State of Haryana].
However, Justice Amol Rattan Singh declined to dismiss the first information report (FIR) filed in connection with allegations under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC/ST Act), claiming that the cricketer used the phrase in a derogatory manner.
"Keeping in view the aims and objectives of the Act, in my opinion if the effect of the word used is causing emotional hurt, humiliation etc. to any members of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, a particular caste name having been used in a derogatory manner, even if the intention of the petitioner was obviously not to actually so hurt any person, yet it would not entitle this court to quash the FIR on that ground," the single-Judge observed.
The Court went on to say that until the investigating agency comes to a different judgement, the FIR under the SC/ST Act cannot be quashed in the interim since the usage of the word can cause harm to a member of the Scheduled Caste community.
The charges under Sections 153-A (promoting enmity between different groups, acts prejudicial to maintaining harmony) and 153B (imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration) of the Indian Penal Code were dismissed because "the petitioner did not mean to cause any disrespect, harm, or even humiliation to any class of people," according to the Court.
The term 'bhangi' is typically used in a negative connotation in northern India, according to the judge.
Singh used the word 'bhangi' to describe Indian spinner Yuzvendra Chahal's antics at a wedding on an Instagram live with current India captain Rohit Sharma, prompting the FIR.
In his appeal, Singh said that the complainant misconstrued the matter, lacked locus standi, and failed to prove the elements of the offences.
The High Court refused to halt the police inquiry in an earlier decision, but it did rule that no coercive action be taken against him until it was determined whether the phrase was used in a derogatory, casteist connotation.
In previous sessions, the respondents claimed that the term 'bhangi' is used to denigrate members from a specific Scheduled Caste community, based on a poll they performed. The complainant claimed that, because of Singh's position, he humiliated the whole Dalit community by making such remarks.
Yuvraj Singh's lawyer argued that the FIR should be dismissed because the complainant does not fall within the Act's definition of "victim" because he is not a member of the bhangi caste.
The complaint was also said to be false, and the complainant was a repeat offender and extortionist.
It was also said that the cricketer used the word to allude to bhang users (hemp). The lawyer went on to say that the word used had not resulted in any retaliation against members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and that there had been no disruptions in peace and order.
The attorney stated that Yuvraj Singh is a humanitarian person who will now do charity work for Dalits and that his remark was misconstrued.
The complainant's lawyer claimed that he belongs to the Dalit group.
He further noted that Singh never specified in his apology or petition that he had used the phrase to refer to cannabis users.
It was argued that FIRs cannot be invalidated just because Singh apologised, especially since he never disputed using the phrase.
The High Court declared the complainant a victim under the SC/ST Act right away.
Even so, it observed that Singh "did not attempt to promote or even also did not intend to promote any disharmony by usage of the phrase looking at the context in which it was used".
The Court used the word saala (brother-in-law) in Hindu and Punjabi to point out how many words are employed in a pejorative manner in everyday speech, even if their true meaning refers to something different.
As a result, the charges under the IPC were dismissed.
The petition was, however, dismissed when it came to accusations under the SC/ST Act.
It was up to the cops to figure out if the ST/ST offences were true.
The petitioner was represented by senior counsel Puneet Bali, as well as advocates Uday Agnihotri and Sachin Jain.
The State was represented by Additional Counsel General Neeraj Poswal, and the plaintiff was represented by advocate Arjun Sheoran.