Protesting On Streets To Safeguard Rights When Interests Are Affected Is Not An Offence: Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court said that preventing citizens from holding a peaceful protest through force or coercion cannot be justified.
Justice Farjand Ali, Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court held that simply because an individual took to the streets to protest for safeguarding rights when interests are affected, it is not an offence.
The Jodhpur Bench held thus in a batch of Writ Petitions relating to the FIR lodged against around 53 accused persons.
A Single Bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed, “… the alleged protest stemmed from genuine resentment and was an expression of democratic dissent. In a democracy, of the people, by the people, and for the people, peaceful protest is a constitutional right. Simply because an individual took to the streets to protest in order to safeguard their rights when their interests were affected does not imply that they have committed offences under Sections 117, 143, 283, and 353 of the IPC, or Section 8B of the NH Act.”
The Bench said that preventing citizens from holding a peaceful protest through force or coercion cannot be justified.
Advocates Nishant Bora and Yuvraj Singh represented the Petitioners while Dy. G.A. N.S. Chandawat represented the Respondents.
Case Background
An FIR was lodged against 53 accused persons including the Petitioners alleging that a meeting for the distribution of water from Jawai Bandh was to be conducted on January 2, 2022 at the headquarter by the Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur. Traditionally, this meeting has always taken place at the Dam Inspection Bhawan, Sumerpur, owing to the rationale that it pertains to the distribution of water from Jawai Bandh, therefore, the test and related assessments are to be conducted in the Dam Inspection Bhawan where it is convenient for the farmers to attend the same. A serious disappointment and wrath was there among the farmers of Jawai Bandh areas and Sumerpur, as they did their level best to convince the senior officers to hold the meeting as per the tradition, in view of the past practice and in the interest of the farmers, so that their voice could be heard. However, the meeting was suddenly scheduled at a different venue, possibly depriving the farmers of a fair opportunity to present their grievances. As a result, several farmers left their agricultural fields and offices to make a democratic protest near the highway area at Sumerpur.
On October 9, 2022, a large number of farmers began a peaceful protest. Subsequently, a meeting was held at Pali which was boycotted by the representatives of the farmers. The authorities and administrative officers then decided to proceed with the distribution of water without obtaining any feedback from the farmers, who would be directly impacted by such decisions and, therefore, in order to protest the decision of the authorities again, the meeting convened was also boycotted by the farmers. Discontented and disappointed, the farmers assembled at NH-62 to raise their voices against the alleged unreasonable and inappropriate actions of the authorities. Approximately 700-800 farmers gathered and engaged in a peaceful protest against the administrative decisions. On the instructions of administrative officers, the police team attempted to disperse/scatter the protesters, however, no abnormal situation, commotion, or loss of property was reported in the police record. As the FIR was registered against the protestors, it was challenged before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in the above context of the case, noted, “If a person takes to the streets for the sake of their life or happiness, which is integrally linked to their livelihood, it cannot be construed as a piece of evidence of a common object. Each individual faces their own hardship, for instance, if the water supply is cut off, crops of the farmer may fail, and they may have nothing to eat. People who are wholly and mainly dependent on agricultural produce may naturally become distressed at the sudden realization that they would not receive water.”
The Court added that the mere expression of anguish cannot be taken to mean that they share a common objective or have formed an unlawful assembly and there is no evidence of violence or threats that could have disturbed public peace and order.
“As it is manifesting from the provision itself that forming assembly alone is not an offence rather it must have a common object enumerated in first to fifth clause and the explanation mentioned as a rider to the provision. … Regarding obstruction, it is obvious that if people gather somewhere to assert their rights, the way will be blocked automatically. However, this does not mean they caused harm to anyone”, it said.
Furthermore, the Court noted that the police only came to disperse the crowd, which negates the offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
“… there is no allegation or indication of any mishap or damage caused to the highway. In a silent protest, it cannot be presumed that any person has caused harm to public property or to any individual. It is well understood that water is a basic necessity, and for farmers, it is a matter of survival and livelihood. Their wrath and resentment, therefore, is natural”, it observed.
The Court also elucidated that if a group stands in a public place, some degree of obstruction is inevitable, but that alone does not constitute an offence, especially in the absence of violence or damage and, therefore, the ingredients of Section 8B are not fulfilled.
“This Court is of the view that this is a democratic country that exists for its people. … Every individual has the constitutional right to raise his voice against the actions of a public officer, especially if those actions directly impact their rights or livelihood. If simply opposing an officer’s decision results in the registration of a criminal case, it would reflect a mindset reminiscent of British colonial rule but surely not the spirit of a free, democratic nation governed by the rule of law”, it further remarked.
The Court emphasised that justice is not meant solely for those who are able to access it due to their resources or awareness and it is equally available to those who, due to financial, social, or informational constraints, could not appear before the Court.
“The accused persons who have appeared before this Court are well-represented, well-informed, and vigilant. … This order shall be applicable to all such individuals as well. Since the entire FIR stands quashed, no individual shall be prosecuted in connection with this case”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petitions and quashed the proceedings against the accused persons.
Cause Title- Ajaypal Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JD:23517)
