Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Against Advocate For Using Term 'Bhangi' In Garbage Complaint Video
An advocate was booked for using the term ‘Bhangi’ in a video highlighting garbage issues in his locality.
Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay Deshmukh, Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court quashed a First Information Report (FIR) filed against an Advocate who was accused of using the term ‘Bhangi’ in a video criticizing the inaction of municipal authorities.
The issue arose when the advocate disturbed by the persistent garbage accumulation in his locality in Jalgaon, recorded and circulated a video showing the extent of the problem. In the video, he mentioned that pigs had begun entering the area due to the filth and stated that they were coming from ‘Bhangiwada’ and ‘Mehtarwada’ — locations that have been referred to by these names for decades. His statement was made in the context of public health concerns.
The division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay Deshmukh noted, "It is stated that the Circular issued on November 9, 2000, has been issued with an intention that words Rukhi and Walmiki should be used in daily transactions, communications and Government communications, however, the circular does not affect the words which are used in the Constitution of India, which gives benefit to the Sweepers under Legal Provision. Thus, it is to be noted that the intention of the circular is limited and the circular does not intend to replace the words those are already there in the Constitution of India. The reliance of the informant on this circular is uncalled for or in a sense that it cannot be so used as the informant intends to use it."
The High Court clarified that this directive was intended for routine administrative and public discourse, and does not alter or override language used in constitutional provisions that pertain to benefits and protections accorded to certain communities, including sweepers. It added, “These words cannot be considered as targeting or insulting or intimidating members of Rukhi or Walmiki caste. Certainly, the intention behind stating that, was to point out that pigs have come from a particular area which might be known with a name since years together."
The Court observed that these references were not used in a derogatory or insulting manner toward the Scheduled Caste communities historically associated with those areas. Rather, the names were used to identify geographical locations long known by those traditional terms.
The Court noted, "It is to be noted that the said forward by witness Uday Patil was not under the control of the applicant. Prosecution at this stage has not come with the case that Uday Patil is a member of Scheduled Caste i.e. of the same community to which the informant belongs. When witness Uday Patil states that without application of mind and in hurry he had forwarded the said video under the impression that it is the complaint in respect of not picking the garbage, then it probably appears to be the same intention of the applicant behind sending video to Uday Patil."
The Court added, "Thus, this appears to be another classical example of forwards on the WhatsApp groups and WhatsApp of individuals without application of mind or without considering the consequences."
Given that the complainant was not even a member of the WhatsApp group where the video was initially shared, and considering the absence of direct evidence of malicious intent or targeted insult by the advocate, the bench concluded that the FIR lacked sufficient grounds for prosecution.
Consequently, the FIR was quashed.
Cause Title: Kedar Kishor Bhusari v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., [2025:BHC-AUG:12578-DB]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate SV Dixit
Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor NR Dayama, Advocate HV Tungar
