The Supreme Court has stayed criminal proceedings against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and others in connection with a public protest organized by the Congress party in the year 2022.

The Karnataka High Court earlier refused to quash criminal cases against the Chief Minister and others. In that context, the Bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit had observed that, "The proponents of agitational rights claim right to political protest as a right to freedom of expression and assembly. However, exercising such a form of freedom can prove costly for the society. Agitations hinder the regular movement of ordinary people".

Today, a bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Prashant Kumar observed, “The challenge in this bunch of SLP against a common order dated 6-2-2024 whereunder the High Court declined to favourably consider the plea for quashment of the proceedings pending before the Special Court for trial of cases against MPs-MLAs. The proceedings emanated from...were registered by the Police, Bengaluru City against as many as 36 accused persons for offences under Section 141 IPC and under Section 103 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. The counsel for the petitioner would draw attention to the relevant part of the chargesheet dated 12-02-2023 to point out that the accused were protesting and shouting slogans on the public road against the then political dispensation in the Karnataka state. There was no allegation of the nature referred to like assembling to overawe by criminal force, or to resist execution of any law or criminal mischief and trespass which are the necessary ingredients for invoking IPC. Yet, on the obstruction to the public and law and order situation allegation, the criminal proceedings have been drawn up against the petitioners. The counsel would also point out that in a democracy right of freedom of speech and protest is paramount and is guaranteed under right to assemble and protest and the only restriction envisaged is inter alia when public order is impacted under 19(2) of the Constitution. It is thus argued that when it is not a case of public order and law and order, the political protest against the political dispensation in the State conducted peacefully without any criminal intent or element cannot be muzzled by invocation of penal provisions. Accordingly, it is argued that the High Court should have granted relief in the petitions filed by the accused in the case”.

"Issue notice returnable in 6 weeks. In the meantime, further proceedings against the petitioners and the operation of the impugned order are stayed”, the bench further noted in the order.

Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Devdatt Kamat, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sidharth Luthra appeared for Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, Ministers Ramalinga Reddy and MB Patil, and All-India Congress Committee leader Randeep Singh Surjewala.

During the arguments today, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for the Chief Minister stressed on the rights guranteed under the Constitution of India pertaining to freedom of speech which is paramount democracy. "My humble and respectful submission is that if these kind of political demonstration leads to a case under Section 141 then there would be absolutely no right under (Article) 19(1a) and 19(1)", he submitted.

"Was there any criminal act or intimidation?", asked Justice Roy.

"No", responded Singhvi. He then further submitted that there are 6 similar order of the High Court with similar set of facts containing political protests with unlawful assembly where the proceedings were quashed.

When Singhvi argued on the rights under Article 19(1a) and Article 19(1b) of the Constitution, Justice Mishra said, "The offences have been provided in the statute book keeping in view (Article) 19(1a). It is not that every demonstration (not clear) will have to be quashed. See how much ever…lawlessness is on the road we have to pass it because 19(1a)? It cannot be in a generalised form”.

"Your lordships makes a distinction between politicians protesting and hardened or any other type of a criminal doing these acts", responded Singhvi.

However, Justice Mishra intervened to say, "Your argument is, if a politician does it, it has to be quashed and if another group of people are on the road making demonstration's they cannot do it. So only politicians have the right under Article 19(1a) according to you”.

For the background, the charges stemmed from a political party's protest march, disrupting traffic and demanding a minister's resignation. The accused sought quashment, arguing the lack of ingredients for the alleged offenses and political motivation behind the accusations. The State contended that the protest violated regulations, leading to obstruction and disturbance of law and order.

The High Court placed reliance on the case of Amit Sahani vs Commissioner of Police, wherein the Apex Court lent credence to justifying regulating/restricting 'agitation rights'. It was observed in that case that, "we have to make it unequivocally clear that public ways and public spaces cannot be occupied in such a manner and that too indefinitely. Democracy and dissent go hand in hand, but then the demonstrations expressing dissent have to be in designated places alone. The present case was not even one of protests taking place in an undesignated area, but was a blockage of a public way which caused grave inconvenience to commuters. We cannot accept the plea of the applicants that an indeterminable number of people can assemble whenever they choose to protest…"

Cause Title: Siddaramaiah v State of Karnataka & Anr.

Justice Hrishikesh RoyJustice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Agatha Shukla