The populace of this country leaves no page unturned in its Constitution. Especially when conflicts arise as to the fundamental right to freedom and life with dignity, meticulous analyses of the law, as it is, are bound to occur. In a recent case, when the High Court of Karnataka faced the issue as to whether ‘satire’ on a ‘particular community’ is triable under Sections 153A, 149, and 295A of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the Court declared that the expression is protected under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. This article tends to analyse the judgment and its implications on free speech in the context of artistic expression.
Background of the Case:
The petitioners who are the students and the faculty members of Jain (Deemed-to-be) University, faced criminal proceedings for enacting a satirical skit during the Jain University Youth Fest-2023. The skit was remarked allegedly offensive towards marginalized communities, which led to the filing of an FIR under Sections 153A, 149, and 295A of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The complaint was filed by the Assistant Director of the Social Welfare Department based on a video recording of the performance.
Judicial Findings:
Justice Krishna Kumar reviewed the evidence and proceeded with quashing the FIR. The Court stated:
No deliberate intention on the part of petitioners: The Court held that no deliberate intention on the part of the petitioners to humiliate any particular community could be established. The Court cited Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008) 12 SCC 531, and reiterated that intent is a crucial element in offenses under the SC/ST Act:
“When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law.”
Constitutional protection of satire and artistic expression: Referring to Indibly Creative Pvt. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal (2020) 12 SCC 436, the Court recognized satire is a legitimate form of artistic expression protected under Article 19(1)(a):
“Satire and irony are willing allies of the quest to entertain while at the same time to lead to self-reflection. The true purpose of art is to question and provoke… The Constitution protects the ability of every individual citizen to believe as much as to communicate, to conceptualise as much as to share.”
Failure to establish essential ingredients of the offenses: The Court noted that:
Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act require an intentional act of insult within public view, which was certainly not evident in this case.
The complainant was not a member of the SC/ST community, which raised questions about the maintainability of the complaint under the SC/ST Act.
Section 153A of the IPC penalizes acts promoting enmity between communities. It requires proof of actual disharmony or violence, which was absent in the given case.
Section 295A IPC encapsulates the offence of blasphemy. The section mandatorily seeks deliberate and malicious intent. However, this too was not proven.
The Court also referred to the leading case, Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020) 18 SCC 763, wherein it was stated that –
“Offense under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste.”
Precedent Analysis:
To arrive at its decision, the Court relied heavily on the judgements as follows;
T. Nageshwara Rao v. State of Karnataka, 2021 – Referring to this case, the Karnataka HC reaffirmed the principle that criminal law should not be used as a tool for harassment when the essential ingredients of an offense are absent. The Court held that where an FIR lacks material evidence to substantiate an offense, it must be quashed to prevent abuse of process.
Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 18 SCC 763 –
Highlighting this case from the Supreme Court, the HC held that mere reference to a person’s caste does not automatically constitute an offense under the SC/ST Act. The act must be committed with a specific intent to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in a public setting.
Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 12 SCC 531 –
Analysing this ruling from the Apex Court, the HC in this case emphasized that in cases under the SC/ST Act, the complainant must establish that the accused was not a member of the SC/ST community, and that the insult made was intentional. In the absence of this very condition, the complaint lacks merit and should be dismissed.
Indibly Creative Pvt. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, (2020) 12 SCC 436 –
Following this case, the Court held that artistic expression, including satire, is protected under Article 19(1)(a) and should not be unduly curtailed. The ruling specially cautioned against criminalizing humor or satire unless it incites violence or public disorder.
Shailesh Kumar v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 3 Kant LJ 127 –
Quoting this case, the HC reiterated that the essence of Section 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act lies in the intent to humiliate. This requisite must be explicitly demonstrated in the complaint. Mere verbal reference to caste without malice does not constitute an offense.
Ajit Hanumakkanavar v. State of Karnataka, 2019 – Finally, emphasising the findings of this case, the HC reiterated that Sections 153A and 505(2) of the IPC require a tangible provocation of enmity between groups. A mere expression does not meet the threshold for prosecution under these provisions unless proven to incite violence.
CASE DETAILS – Dinesh Borkar vs State of Karnataka, 2025
Reference:
https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/2025-03-01/34d25y6c/Dinesh_Borkar___Anr__and_State_of_Karnataka___Anr_.pdf
About Author
Tanishq, a law student at the Department of Legal Studies and Research, Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal, is a budding legal writer with a sharp eye for evolving legal landscapes. Passionate about Intellectual Property Rights, Constitutional Law, and Women and Child Safety Laws, Tanishq actively explores contemporary legal nuances through writing and research.
