sekarreporter1: *GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT* *Po.Mu.Iraniyan @ Muthu Murugan Vs. The Union of India and 3 Ors.* W.P.(MD)No.20097 of 2018 Dated: 11.01.2023 *HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD* disposed of the Writ Petition in the matter relating to *“Cultural Misappropriation – Cultural Degradation – Community Misrepresentation”,* and further observed and held as follows:

[1/19, 08:26] sekarreporter1: *GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT*

*Po.Mu.Iraniyan @ Muthu Murugan Vs. The Union of India and 3 Ors.*
W.P.(MD)No.20097 of 2018
Dated: 11.01.2023

*HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD* disposed of the Writ Petition in the matter relating to *“Cultural Misappropriation – Cultural Degradation – Community Misrepresentation”,* and further observed and held as follows:

1) The petitioner’s grievance is that the people belonging to Kuravar community are being degraded in the cultural programmes and dance videos uploaded perpetuated bad reputation for the community, and no effective action was taken on complaints.

2) There are legal provisions that prohibit and offer protection against discrimination on the basis of caste, apart from Articles 14, 15 and 17 of the Constitution. The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (PCR Act) prohibits the enforcement of social or economic disabilities on any person on the ground of his or her caste. It also prohibits the use of caste name for the purpose of insulting on the ground of untouchability. Further, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 makes intentional insult or intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of Scheduled Tribe in any place of public view, a punishable offence. That apart, the Parliament enacted the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 with an intention to prohibit indecent representation of women through advertisements or in publications, writings, paintings, and figures or in any other manner. Further, Section 67 (A) of the Information Technology Act, 2008 deals with punishment for publishing or transmitting of material containing sexually explicit act, etc., in electronic form.

3) In a similar case in WP(MD)No.21756 of 2022 filed by one B.Ramkumar Adityan, the Court directed the police authorities to prohibit the obscene and vulgar dance appropriate action against them. Despite various directions of this Court, obscenity in the dance persists.

4) Such misrepresentation and misappropriation will hurt the community’s feeling ultimately leads to community being disrespected and ostracised, though they are not involved in the performances. Nevertheless, banning of such art form will amount to violation of fundamental rights of the individual performers and groups.

5) Therefore, the Court finds it appropriate to give certain directions to prohibit the use of the names of ‘Kuravar-Kurathi’ in performances in which they are not involved and the names used in videos on social media, identifying the dance performance with the Kuravar community shall be expunged and appropriate criminal action shall also be initiated by creating a separate portal by Cyber Crime department so as to enable the general public to make their complaints with supportive documents..
[1/19, 08:26] sekarreporter1: 💐