Expression Of Right To Democratic Protest Though For Bizarre Reason: Madras HC Quashes Case Against Lawyers Demanding NH Toll Exemption
The petitioner approached the Madras High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings in a criminal case.
While quashing the criminal case against lawyers and other accused booked for carrying out a protest demanding that the toll road between Trichy and Chennai be made free of cost for advocates, the Madras High Court has held that the entire matter was nothing but an expression of their right to democratic protest, though for a bizarre reason.
The petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings in a criminal case.
The Single Bench of Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy held, “The entire episode is nothing but an expression of their right to democratic protest, though for a bizarre reason. Merely because the petitioners are members of the Bar, they cannot be placed on a separate pedestal. When a toll is legally collected from the public, it must be paid by the members of the Bar as well.”
“Be that as it may, since the actions of the petitioners and others do not attract the ingredients of any criminal offence, this criminal original petition stands allowed”, it added.
Advocate M. Kalaiyarasan represented the Appellant while Government Advocate (Crl.Side) M. Mohamed Riyaz represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
It was alleged that the petitioners and others, being members of the Bar, assembled without any permission and staged a protest demanding that the toll road between Trichy and Chennai be made free of cost for advocates. Consequent to the protest, a case was registered and a final report was filed under Sections 189(2), 223 and 126(2) of the BNS.
Arguments
The petitioners submitted that they had only staged a peaceful democratic protest. Regarding the offence under Section 223 of the BNS, it was submitted that the registration of the FIR and the final report were legally unsustainable in view of the law laid down in Jeevanandham and others Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police and another (2018).
Reasoning
The Bench accepted the contention of the petitioners that a charge under Section 223 of the BNS, cannot be taken into consideration by the Court except by following the specific procedure prescribed under the BNSS.
“As far as the remaining two charges are concerned, the records reveal that there was no violence or disturbance to public order. No intention can be gathered from the materials placed along with the final report to suggest that the petitioners intended to commit any criminal offence”, it added.
Holding that the actions of the petitioners and others did not attract the ingredients of a criminal offence, the Bench quashed the final report and all further proceedings against the petitioners as well as the other accused.
Cause Title: Rajkumar v. The State rep. by The Inspector of Police (Case No.: CRL.OP.No.18935 of 2026)