Munmun Dutta, the actor best known for her performance in the Hindi television series Tarak Mehta Ka Oolta Chashma, was on Friday granted interim anticipatory bail by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case filed against her for using a casteist slur against a Scheduled Caste (SC) community in a video.
The court granted her interim anticipatory bail on the ground that the actor had joined the investigation within a week. The next date of hearing has been scheduled for February 25.
In a video released on May 9, 2021, Dutta stated that she did not look like a Bhangi, a term often used in a pejorative manner to refer to an SC community. She said that she instead “wanted to look good”.
The video was taken down by the actor after facing flak on social media.
Soon after, a complaint was filed against Dutta by Rajat Kalsan, Dalit rights activist and convenor of the National Alliance for Dalit Human Rights, in Haryana’s Hansi city police station. The complaint was registered under Section 3(1) (U) of the Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes (Protection Of Atrocities) Act.
Speaking to Silverscreen India on Thursday, the complainant and President of Akhil Bharatiya Balai Mahasangh, Manoj Parmar said that the actor’s video contained indecent language. He added that the usage of the word Bhangi was against the Balmiki community, an SC community. It should be illegal and prohibited, he added.
Initially, the Indore police had refused to register a complaint by Parmar and his organisation. It was only accepted after members of the SC community staged a protest.
As per the report, a petition was filed in the Supreme Court to club all the First Information Reports against the actor and the case registered at the Hansi City police station to be treated as the main one.
Recommended
During the hearing on Friday, Dutta’s counsel Ruchi Sekhri argued that one portion of the vlog was taken out of context and made viral and that the actor had already apologised for her statement. She added that there was a language barrier due to which Dutta was not aware of the word’s meaning. If the entire vlog is taken into consideration, Dutta had used the remark for herself and that no offence under Section 3 of the Act is made out as the ingredients of Section 3(1)(u) are not fulfilled, her counsel further argued.
The court observed that it would be inappropriate to hold a mini-trial at this stage in the case to conclude if an offence under section 3 of the SC&ST Act is made out. At the same time, the court also said that it is debatable that describing herself by using such an objectionable remark can itself be enough to fall under the same section.