In a significant legal relief for Bollywood actors Shilpa Shetty and Salman Khan, the Rajasthan High Court on Thursday quashed a criminal case filed under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The case, registered in 2017, alleged derogatory remarks against the Valmiki community during a promotional interview for the film Tiger Zinda Hai.
The High Court ruled that the allegations did not meet the legal threshold to constitute a criminal offense, citing procedural lapses and a lack of malicious intent. The verdict highlights the importance of proper legal protocols in cases filed under the SC/ST Act.
FIR Dismissed Due to Legal and Procedural Flaws
The case stemmed from an FIR filed in December 2017 at the Churu Kotwali police station, accusing Shetty and Khan of using derogatory language in a television interview in 2013. The complainant, Ashok Panwar, alleged that the remarks insulted the Valmiki community. However, Justice Arun Monga, who presided over the case, found significant procedural flaws in the FIR.
The court highlighted that the FIR was filed over three years after the alleged incident, raising concerns about its credibility. “Extraordinary delays in filing such complaints often lead to exaggerations, weakening the merits of the case,” noted Justice Monga.
Additionally, the FIR cited Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(u) of the SC/ST Act, which were introduced in 2016. As the alleged incident occurred in 2013, applying these sections retroactively was deemed legally impermissible. Advocate Prashant Patil also pointed out that the FIR cited IPC Section 153A, which pertains to promoting enmity between different groups but lacked substantial evidence to support the charge.
Context and Background of the Case
The controversial FIR accused the actors of using the term “Bhangi” in a derogatory context, which sparked widespread protests. Members of the Valmiki community vandalized theaters screening Tiger Zinda Hai, calling for action against the actors.
Shilpa Shetty’s legal counsel, Advocate Prashant Patil, argued that the term “Bhangi” has multiple meanings beyond its caste connotation. Derived from Sanskrit, it can mean “broken” or “fragmented” and is also used to refer to cannabis drinkers. Citing the Oxford Hindi-English Dictionary, Patil asserted that there was no intent to harm or insult the Valmiki community.
The protests had a significant impact on the film’s release. According to industry reports, theater disruptions caused an estimated 10% dip in box office collections in Rajasthan during its opening weekend, translating to losses worth ₹2 crore.
Court Emphasizes Lack of Malicious Intent
The High Court concluded that the statements attributed to Shetty and Khan did not demonstrate any intent to insult or harm the Valmiki community. Justice Monga emphasized that public figures often face exaggerated interpretations of their statements, with some individuals using such incidents to gain media attention.
The court also noted that FIRs under the SC/ST Act require preliminary inquiries and appropriate sanctions, which were not carried out in this case. This failure further weakened the foundation of the complaint.
Protests and Controversy During Film Release
The allegations had created a storm at the time, with significant backlash from the Valmiki community. During the release of Tiger Zinda Hai, protests erupted across Rajasthan, leading to vandalism at multiple theaters. In Jaipur, six theaters reported damage, with repair costs estimated at ₹10 lakh.
Despite the uproar, the High Court’s ruling underlines the importance of adhering to legal processes and ensuring that FIRs are based on substantial evidence and lawful procedures.
Relief for the Actors After a Long Legal Battle
The High Court’s decision brings a much-needed end to a protracted legal battle that began nearly six years ago. The dismissal of the FIR clears Shilpa Shetty and Salman Khan of all allegations, offering them significant relief.
The judgment also sets a precedent for careful scrutiny of allegations under the SC/ST Act, emphasizing that accusations must meet strict legal and procedural standards.
This case serves as a stark reminder of how procedural lapses and delays can lead to unwarranted legal entanglements. For Shetty and Khan, the ruling marks the conclusion of a turbulent chapter, reaffirming their legal innocence and allowing them to move past the controversy.