Protest Is Hallmark Of Democracy, Says Madras High Court While Quashing Case Against Farmer

The Madras High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against an agriculturist who took part in a hunger strike demanding the withdrawal of criminal cases against the founder of a farmers' association. The court observed that peaceful protests are a hallmark of democracy and are protected under the Constitution, provided they do not cause public inconvenience or violate the law.

Justice M Nirmal Kumar held that the prosecution had failed to produce any material to show that the protest caused inconvenience to the public or obstructed free movement. The court also found that the allegations against the petitioner were general in nature and did not disclose any specific act that would attract the provisions invoked by the police. "Showing protest is the hallmark of democracy, which is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution of India," the court observed, Live Law reports.

Peaceful protest under scrutiny

The case arose from a petition filed by Krishnamoorthy seeking to quash criminal proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate in Palladam, Tiruppur district.

According to the prosecution, Krishnamoorthy and others staged a hunger strike demanding the withdrawal of criminal cases registered against M Easan, an advocate and founder of the Tamil Nadu Farmers Protection Association. The police alleged that the protest was held without prior permission and caused inconvenience to the public while obstructing the free movement of people.

Based on a complaint lodged by the Village Administrative Officer, the Avinashipalayam Police Station registered an FIR under Sections 189(2), 226 and 193(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). A final report was later filed before the Judicial Magistrate.

Court finds no evidence of public disruption

Krishnamoorthy argued that the association had been working on issues affecting farmers through peaceful and democratic means, including public awareness campaigns, lawful agitations, representations and legal proceedings. He submitted that the hunger strike was organised after repeated criminal cases were registered against the association's founder and was intended to draw the attention of the government, public authorities and the general public.

The petitioner also contended that the protest was held on private property and not on a public road. He argued that he was exercising his fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution. It was further submitted that there was no prohibitory order in force on the day of the protest.

The State opposed the plea, arguing that the protest had been conducted without permission and had caused inconvenience to the public and obstructed free movement. It also informed the court that the chargesheet had already been filed and urged it not to quash the proceedings.

After examining the records, the High Court noted that no member of the public had lodged any complaint and there was nothing to indicate that the protest had affected the public. The court also found that the protesters had merely raised slogans seeking the withdrawal of criminal cases against the association's founder. It further observed that there was no prohibitory order in force on the day of the protest and that there was no disobedience on the part of the petitioner.

Holding that the petitioner had only exercised rights protected under the Constitution, the court said continuing the criminal trial would amount to an abuse of the legal process. It accordingly allowed the petition and quashed the criminal case against Krishnamoorthy.