The Kerala High Court has affirmed that public humiliation of a Scheduled Caste student by a non-SC/ST teacher, even without explicit caste-based slurs, can trigger the non-bailable bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2018, if the intent to humiliate is established through context and statutory presumption. This ruling reinforces the Act’s protective intent in educational institutions.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Dr. M. Kodandaram, a faculty member at Anjarakkandy Dental College, Kannur, is accused of subjecting Nithin Raj, a first-year BDS student belonging to a Scheduled Caste community, to sustained psychological abuse, public humiliation, and intimidation, culminating in Nithin Raj’s suicide on 10.04.2026. The prosecution alleges that these acts, committed in the presence of peers and within the institutional setting, constitute offences under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2018, and Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (equivalent to Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide). The Special Judge at Thalassery dismissed the appellant’s anticipatory bail plea on 25.04.2026, holding that a prima facie case was made out. The appellant now challenges this order.
Key Facts
- Nithin Raj, aged 20, belonged to a Scheduled Caste family in Nedumangad, Thiruvananthapuram. His father worked as a painter.
- He secured admission to the BDS course at Anjarakkandy Dental College under the SC/ST quota in 2025.
- He was financially constrained; availed a Rs. 15,000 loan from an online lender ("Insta Pay") to cover his mother’s tuberculosis treatment.
- The appellant, Dr. Kodandaram, was known for abusive conduct toward students, particularly those from marginalized backgrounds.
- On 13.03.2026, during a class, the appellant publicly ridiculed Nithin Raj after reading his answer paper aloud, calling him "a fool," "idiot," and "the worst dog in the class." He ordered other students to read the paper and mocked its content.
- The appellant allegedly made derogatory remarks about Nithin Raj’s family, including mocking his mother’s recent surgery and suggesting he donate an organ.
- On 13.03.2026, after the classroom incident, Nithin Raj was summoned to the staff room, where the appellant allegedly threatened to cut off his arm and said he would be "run over by a car."
- Nithin Raj was forced to occupy the college sick room, which was unclean and unfit for habitation, after his original accommodation was vacated.
- On 10.04.2026 at 13:38 hrs, Nithin Raj committed suicide.
- The suicide note was not recovered. However, multiple classmates corroborated the pattern of abuse.
- A separate FIR (Crime No. 217/2026) was registered on 17.04.2026 against "Insta Pay" lenders for harassment related to the Rs. 15,000 loan.
- Prof. Latha Sasidharan, a faculty member, lodged a complaint on 12.04.2026 alleging harassment by loan app representatives, but no evidence links her to instigating the suicide.
Procedural History
- 10.04.2026: Nithin Raj commits suicide at 13:38 hrs.
- 20:25 hrs, 10.04.2026: Crime No. 202/2026 registered at Chakkarakkal Police Station under Section 194 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
- 12.04.2026: FIR (Crime No. 13/2026) registered against "Insta Pay" representatives under IT Act and BNS.
- 17.04.2026: FIR (Crime No. 217/2026) registered against loan app agents for extortion.
- 25.04.2026: Additional Sessions Judge, Thalassery, dismisses anticipatory bail application (B.A. No. 444/2026) under SC/ST (POA) Act.
- 28.04.2026: Appellant files Criminal Appeal No. 609 of 2026 before the Kerala High Court.
- 12.06.2026: Final hearing conducted.
- 19.06.2026: Judgment delivered dismissing the appeal.
The Parties' Positions
For the Appellant
- Argued that the suicide was caused by harassment from the "Insta Pay" loan app, not by the appellant’s conduct.
- Contended that no prima facie case exists under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, as no explicit caste-based slurs were uttered.
- Relied on Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala and Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India to argue that the bail bar under Section 18 applies only if the offence under the Act is prima facie made out.
- Asserted that Section 3(2)(v) is merely an enabling provision for sentencing, not a substantive offence.
- Claimed media trial prejudiced the proceedings and that the allegations were speculative.
For the Respondents (State and Victim’s Family)
- Argued that the appellant’s conduct - public ridicule, dehumanizing language ("worst dog"), threats, and targeting of a SC student - clearly amounted to intentional humiliation under Section 3(1)(r).
- Emphasized that knowledge of Nithin Raj’s caste identity is presumed under Section 8(c) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, given his admission under the quota.
- Rejected the loan app narrative as a diversion, noting the loan amount was minimal and repayment demands were not linked to the suicide timeline.
- Cited witness statements from classmates corroborating the pattern of abuse and Nithin Raj’s emotional distress.
- Highlighted the appellant’s history of abusive behavior toward marginalized students.
Relief Sought
The appellant seeks quashing of the bail denial order dated 25.04.2026 and grant of anticipatory bail. The State and victim’s family oppose the bail, arguing that release would obstruct investigation and undermine the deterrent purpose of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
The Legal Issue
The central question is whether the appellant’s alleged acts of public humiliation, intimidation, and degradation of a Scheduled Caste student - without explicit caste-based language - constitute a prima facie offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2018, thereby attracting the non-bailable bar under Section 18.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel relied on Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala and Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India to argue that Section 18’s bail bar applies only if the complaint discloses a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act. They contended that Section 3(1)(r) requires intentional insult or intimidation with the specific intent to humiliate on account of caste identity, and that mere abusive language, even if degrading, does not suffice without explicit reference to caste. They further cited Jhhau v. State and Rajachandrasekharan v. State of Kerala to assert that Section 3(2)(v) is not a substantive offence and cannot independently sustain a bail bar. They argued that the loan app harassment, documented in two separate FIRs, was the proximate cause of suicide, and that the appellant’s conduct, while unprofessional, did not meet the threshold of atrocity under the Act.
For the Respondent
The counsel for the victim’s family and the State contended that Section 8(c) of the SC/ST (POA) Act creates a statutory presumption that the accused, having personal knowledge of the victim, is aware of their caste identity. Given that Nithin Raj was admitted under the SC/ST quota and the appellant was aware of his financial vulnerability and social background, the intent to humiliate on caste grounds could be inferred. They emphasized that the repeated use of dehumanizing language ("worst dog," "idiot," "fool") in public, coupled with threats and humiliation during academic evaluation, constituted a pattern of caste-based degradation. They rejected the loan app narrative as a red herring, noting the minimal sum involved and the absence of any direct link between the loan demands and the suicide timeline.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed review of witness statements from Nithin Raj’s classmates, which consistently described the appellant’s conduct as systematic, public, and degrading. The Court noted that while no explicit caste slur was recorded, the context of Nithin Raj’s admission under the SC/ST quota, the appellant’s known hostility toward marginalized students, and the timing of the abuse - all occurring in an educational setting where caste-based discrimination is historically entrenched - collectively established the requisite intent.
"The appellant, being a teacher, used to refer to the students as 'dogs' and had called Nithin Raj a 'dog,' 'idiot,' 'fool' and 'stupid' and Nithin Raj as a most 'worst dog.' Further, Nithin Raj had been ridiculed in the classroom after his answer paper was taken and read aloud before the other students... Such insults and intimidation humiliated Nithin Raj, and he decided to quit the college on account of the same."
The Court held that Section 3(1)(r) does not require the use of caste-specific epithets. The phrase "with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste" is satisfied when the conduct, viewed objectively, is reasonably understood by the victim and witnesses as an attack on their social dignity rooted in caste identity. The Court relied on Shajan Skaria to affirm that the bar under Section 18 is not absolute but is triggered when the prima facie elements of the offence are discernible from the complaint and investigation materials.
The Court distinguished the loan app harassment as a separate, subsequent event, noting that the FIRs were registered after the suicide and that the investigation into those matters was proceeding independently. The Court observed that the appellant’s conduct was not an isolated incident but part of a broader pattern of abuse against students from disadvantaged backgrounds, which the SC/ST Act was designed to deter.
The Court also rejected the media trial argument, affirming that judicial decisions must be based on evidence, not public opinion, and that media exposure in cases of institutional abuse serves a democratic function.
The Verdict
The appeal was dismissed. The Court upheld the order dated 25.04.2026 denying anticipatory bail to the appellant. The Court held that a prima facie case under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2018, was established, thereby attracting the non-bailable bar under Section 18. The appellant is not entitled to anticipatory bail. The investigation, including arrest and interrogation of the appellant, shall proceed without delay. The Court emphasized that its observations are confined to the bail stage and do not prejudge the merits of the trial.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Public Humiliation by Authority Figures Triggers SC/ST Act Protections
- Practitioners must now argue that even non-explicit caste-based slurs can constitute humiliation under Section 3(1)(r) if the context, victim’s identity, and pattern of conduct establish intent.
- Educational institutions are recognized as spaces where caste-based humiliation is particularly egregious and actionable under the Act.
- Teachers and authority figures are held to a higher standard; abusive conduct toward SC/ST students will be scrutinized under the Act’s protective lens.
Statutory Presumption Under Section 8(c) Is a Powerful Tool
- Where the accused has personal knowledge of the victim (e.g., through institutional records, admissions under quota, or prior interactions), the court may presume awareness of caste identity.
- The burden shifts to the accused to rebut this presumption - mere denial is insufficient.
- This presumption is critical in cases where direct caste references are absent but systemic discrimination is evident.
Loan App Harassment Cannot Displace Institutional Abuse as Cause of Suicide
- In cases involving multiple stressors, courts will examine the proximate and most severe cause of psychological distress.
- Financial harassment by third parties does not automatically absolve institutional perpetrators if their conduct is demonstrably more severe and targeted.
- Prosecutors must present a holistic narrative of abuse, not rely on a single cause.
Media Coverage Is Not a Ground for Bail
- Media exposure, even if sensational, does not constitute prejudice warranting bail.
- Courts are presumed to decide on evidence, not media narratives.
- This reinforces the principle that freedom of the press serves public accountability in cases of institutional failure.
