Citizen’s Liberty Cannot Be Curtailed Casually Citing Crimes Related To Public Demonstrations: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has ruled that a citizen’s liberty cannot be curtailed merely for participating in public protests, emphasizing that such actions do not amount to a violation of the reasonable restrictions under Article 19 of the Constitution.

The Single Bench of Justice VG Arun made the observation while quashing an order by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) at Perinthalmanna, which directed a woman, Sharmina A, to execute a bond of Rs. 50,000 along with sureties to maintain peace for one year. The SDM had based its order on her participation in protests and sloganeering activities.

The Court held that preventive measures under Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) must be invoked only in cases of imminent and substantial threats to public order.

"The liberty of a citizen being sacrosanct cannot be curtailed in a casual manner by referring to crimes relating to public demonstrations. Mere participation in demonstrations, holding banners, or shouting slogans cannot be perceived as activities in violation of the reasonable restrictions under Article 19," the Court observed.

Advcoate Rizwana AA appeared for the Petitioner, while Senior Public Prosecutor Pushpalatha MK appeared for the Respondent. 

The petitioner was accused of being involved in multiple protests, including one marking the death anniversary of a Maoist activist, a demonstration disrupting traffic with slogans referencing the Babri Masjid, and a public protest against a National Investigation Agency (NIA) raid. The police claimed these activities posed a threat to public tranquillity.

However, the Court found that the SDM had merely relied on a police report without an independent assessment. It ruled that the order lacked justification and violated the petitioner's fundamental rights.

The High Court, therefore, quashed the SDM's bond execution order and all subsequent proceedings, reaffirming that dissent and peaceful protest are protected under constitutional rights. "The conduct or wrongful acts, which are projected as the reason for issuing the order must have occurred recently and must be relatable to the apprehension of likelihood of breach of peace. In the case at hand, the impugned order does not even indicate the factors that had prompted the Magistrate to form an opinion that, unless prevented, activities of the petitioner will result in breach of peace and disturb public tranquillity," the Court said. 

Cause Title: Sharmina A v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate & Ors. [Neutral Citation No. 2025:KER:16397]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advcoates Rizwana AA, Aqib Sohail PS.

Respondent: Senior Public Prosecutor Pushpalatha MK

Click here to read/download the Order