The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal case registered against five persons, including officials of Zee Kannada channel, over an alleged casteist remark made during an episode of the television comedy programme Comedy Kiladigalu. The Court held that the use of the expression “Kokke Korava” in the skit, in the absence of an intention to humiliate members of a particular community, did not attract the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Justice H.P. Sandesh allowed three connected criminal petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging an FIR registered on January 22, 2021, by Ashoknagar Police Station, Bengaluru, under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The complaint arose from a January 16, 2021 episode of Comedy Kiladigalu, in which a comedian allegedly used the expression “Kokke Korava”, which the complainant claimed insulted the Korama community. Action was sought against the comedian and the channel’s officials involved in the programme.
The petitioners argued that the expression was not used to refer to the Korama community. They submitted that “Kokke” meant hooked and “Korava” referred to a type of fish available in the region. They also submitted that the channel removed the allegedly offensive words and re-telecast the episode on February 7, 2023, clarifying that there was no intention to hurt the community.
Opposing the petitions, the State contended that the expression was insulting when broadcast publicly. It contended that the question of intention required investigation and could not be decided at the stage of a petition under Section 482 CrPC.
After examining the complaint and the material placed on record, the Court noted that the expression was not found in the programme’s script and appeared to have been used as a slip of the tongue during the skit. The Court observed that merely using an expression alleged to be offensive would not attract the provisions of the SC/ST Act unless the requisite intention to humiliate a person belonging to a particular caste was established. It further noted that the programme was a comedy skit intended to make viewers laugh, and the material on record did not indicate an intention to humiliate any particular community. The Court observed:
“
“When such caste name is also not found in the script and in a slip of tongue, the same is used and not having any intention, it does not attract the provisions of Section 3(10) of SC/ST POA Act and there must be an intention to humiliate a person particularly belonging to particular caste and all of them should know that he belongs to the particular caste, then only it attracts the same.”
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri) 426; Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710; and Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023) 17 SCC 615.
Finding that the allegations and material did not disclose the necessary ingredients of the offence, the Court held that continuation of the criminal proceedings would result in a miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, it allowed the petitions and quashed the FIR dated January 22, 2021.
