On October 4, the Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition that sought to register a First Information Report (FIR) against Jagatguru Rambhadracharya Maharaj. The petition, filed by Prakash Chandra, accused the Hindu saint of making objectionable remarks about Dalits during a religious event.
Prakash Chandra had appealed to the High Court after a trial court found the application to be not maintainable.
During the proceedings at the High Court, senior advocate M.C. Chaturvedi, representing Swami Rambhadracharya, argued that the comments made by the seer did not amount to an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Chaturvedi maintained that the statements could be interpreted in various ways, and thus, they did not meet the criteria for the allegations made by Prakash Chandra.
During the proceedings, the additional government advocate representing the State of Uttar Pradesh also opposed Prakash Chandra’s appeal. The advocate asserted that the order from the special court contained no legal infirmity and supported the dismissal of the appeal.
The Allahabad HC agreed with this perspective and upheld the lower court’s decision and said that Chandra could not have sought the filing of a criminal case in this matter under Section 156(3) of CrPC.
Dismissing the appeal, Justice Saurabh Srivastava observed, “Having perused the grounds taken up while preferring the instant appeal, it is crystal clear that no specific offence under SC/ST Act, 1989, Section 67 of IT Act and other sections of IPC is attracted.”
The Allahabad High Court reasoned that the protections provided under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are personal in nature. This means that such protections are intended for individuals directly affected by the alleged discrimination or offence, rather than for a broader community. Consequently, the court concluded that Prakash Chandra could not file an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) on behalf of the community at large.
“The pious intention of the legislation for protecting the interest and safeguarding the measures of protection for community at large specifically Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes community, is that, if any damage has been committed by some another person who does not belong to the community of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, the Act ensures personal protection espousing the rights available to the person but for community at large the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C is not at all maintainable,” the High Court observed.
Notably, Swami Jagatguru Rambhadracharya Maharaj was one of the saints who testified in court regarding the Ram Janmabhoomi in Ayodhya. During his testimony, he referenced Hindu scriptures to substantiate the claim that Ayodhya is indeed the birthplace of Bhagwan Ram. This involvement in the legal proceedings surrounding the Ram Janmabhoomi case highlights Swami Rambhadracharya’s prominent role in the broader discourse on Hindu religious identity and heritage
