In a notable decision, the Kerala High Court has refused anticipatory bail to renowned Mohiniyattam dancer Kalamandalam Sathyabhama. The artist faces charges under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, for allegedly making derogatory remarks about fellow dancer RLV Ramakrishnan, who belongs to a scheduled caste community.
The allegations stem from an online interview in which Sathyabhama reportedly insulted Ramakrishnan’s appearance, specifically targeting his skin color. Justice K Babu noted that Sathyabhama’s language was explicitly aimed at demeaning Ramakrishnan based on his Dalit background.
The court underscored that the interview, being publicly accessible on YouTube, fell within the ambit of Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act. This section addresses intentional insults or intimidation of scheduled caste or tribe members in public.
In a powerful observation, the court questioned whether caste-based exclusion and discrimination could continue in a democracy that pledges equality. The judgment highlighted the constitutional commitment to fraternity and equality, emphasizing the societal resolve to treat all individuals with respect and provide equal opportunities.
During the interview, Sathyabhama allegedly made disparaging comments about Ramakrishnan’s complexion, comparing it to that of a crow, and used a Malayalam phrase implying he was a beggar.
Following these remarks, Ramakrishnan filed a police complaint, resulting in a criminal case under the SC/ST Act. After being denied anticipatory bail by the special court, Sathyabhama sought relief from the High Court.
Her defense argued that the comments were personal opinions on artistic standards and not intended to target Ramakrishnan’s caste. They also claimed the interview was private, and responsibility lay with the channel for broadcasting it.
However, the prosecution maintained that Sathyabhama’s remarks were designed to humiliate Ramakrishnan due to his caste, and the anticipatory bail bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST Act applied, given the prima facie case.
The court concluded that Sathyabhama’s comments were sufficient for the audience to identify Ramakrishnan as the target, even without mentioning his name. Consequently, her plea for anticipatory bail was rejected, but she was allowed to surrender before the jurisdictional magistrate within a week, instead of police custody.
The ruling featured advocates Biju Antony Aloor, KP Prasanth, Haseeb Hassan M, Krishnasankar D, Asokan KV, and Rebin Vincent Gralan for Sathyabhama, CK Radha Krishnan for Ramakrishnan, and Public Prosecutor G Sudheer for the state.
