Peaceful Expression Cannot Be Criminalized On Vague Allegations: Madras High Court Quashes Case Against Hindu Munnani Workers

The Madras High Court while quashing case registered against members of the Hindu Munnani has held that peaceful expression cannot be penalised with vague allegations.

The Court was considering a Petition seeking to call for the records relating to the FIR registered for offences punishable under Sections 189, 389, 5 and 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The bench of Justice L. Victoria Gowri held, "Criminal law cannot be invoked on vague and omnibus allegations, particularly when the allegations seek to criminalise peaceful expression. The present FIR appears to have been registered mechanically and without application of mind."

The Petition was represented by Advocate Niranjan S.Kumar while the Respondent was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor S. Ravi.

The FIR was registered alleging that the Petitioners, who belong to Hindu Munnani, had participated in a protest which, according to the prosecution, was unlawful.

The Petitioners had contend that the impugned FIR suffers from fundamental illegality and does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence. It was submitted that the alleged protest was conducted peacefully and that peaceful expression of opinion is a constitutionally guaranteed right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. It was their case that expressing one’s views in a democratic nation cannot be criminalised unless the act satisfies the ingredients of a penal provision.

It was further contended that on the very same day, at the same venue, the Police granted permission to one Religious Harmony Group to conduct their protest but denied the same to them arbitrarily without any justification.

The Counsel also submitted that the FIR does not contain any specific overt act attributable to any of the Petitioners. The complaint does not whisper any material to show that the Petitioners indulged in violence, caused disturbance, annoyance or obstruction to any public authority or to the general public and therefore the essential ingredients of Sections 145, 151 and 283 of the Indian Penal Code are not disclosed.

It was further argued that the allegations in the FIR are vague, sweeping and intended only to portray a peaceful assembly as illegal and criminal law cannot be invoked to curtail peaceful expression, which is the bedrock of democratic governance. 

The Court agreed with the submissions and granted the required relief.

"The ingredients of Sections 145, 151 and 283 IPC are not made out in the FIR. Section 145 IPC requires joining or continuing in an unlawful assembly after it has been commanded to disperse Section 151 IPC requires knowledge or intention of committing a cognizable offence, Section 283 IPC requires actual obstruction or danger caused to the public. None of these requirements are satisfied on a plain reading of the FIR", the Court observed.

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Kalanithimaran v. State of Tamil Nadu

Click here to read/ download Order