Calcutta HC Quashes FIR Against SLST Protesters, Holds Peaceful Dissent Is Integral To Democracy [Read Judgment]

Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has quashed Bidhannagar North Police Station Case No. 169 of 2021 and all consequential proceedings against a group of candidates who had protested against the recruitment process of the School Service Commission, holding that the FIR, read as a whole, did not disclose the essential ingredients of any of the offences invoked, namely Sections 143, 188, 341, 269 and 270 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

Justice Anuj Singh delivered the judgment in a Writ Petition  filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking expunging of the petitioners' names from the case.

According to the FIR lodged by a Sub-Inspector of police, on 05.08.2021 the candidates of SLST assembled near Mayukh Bhawan, Salt Lake, and were heading towards Bikash Bhawan to demonstrate by raising slogans to press their demands, in violation of COVID protocols and an order under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was alleged that they did not disperse when asked, tried to obstruct public navigation and restrained officials from discharging their duties. Thirteen persons, including the six petitioners, were arrested. The petitioners contended that they were peacefully protesting against improper recruitment, hunger and unemployment, and that the case, pending as G.R. Case No. 901 of 2021 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar, would saddle them with a criminal record and affect their employment prospects.

The petitioners' counsel relied on Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b), the Madras High Court's decision in J. Jayaraj v. The Chief Educational Officer and the Supreme Court's decision in Re: Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India, on the requirements for an order under Section 144, and on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal for quashing. The State opposed the petition as not maintainable.

Reiterating the settled law on quashing in Bhajan Lal, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque, Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., the court held that it is empowered under Article 226 to quash proceedings where there are mere bald allegations that do not disclose an offence, and that the FIR must be read meaningfully as a whole to find who committed what act and how it satisfies each ingredient of the offence.

On Section 143, the court held that an unlawful assembly under Section 141 requires a common object of one of five enumerated kinds, which the FIR did not disclose, and that mere protest and slogans cannot be an unlawful common object, noting that the right to assemble peaceably under Article 19(1)(b) means a large assembly of demonstrators is not per se illegal. Citing Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra, it observed that the right to dissent and to protest peacefully is integral to democracy, and that a demonstration does not become an offence merely because it was unwelcome to those in authority.

On Section 188, the court found that the FIR did not place the Section 144 order on record or describe how the petitioners' conduct caused or tended to cause obstruction to any person lawfully employed or danger to human life, and that, in terms of Ramlila Maidan, the FIR did not show a grave situation justifying such an order. On Section 341, relying on Keki Hormusji Gharda v. Mehervan Rustom Irani, it held that no identifiable person was alleged to have been obstructed, in what manner or for what duration.

On Sections 269 and 270, the court held that the FIR did not disclose any act likely to spread infection or any reason to believe that the petitioners were infected, relying on the Delhi High Court's decision in Anupam Shahu v. State and Madras High Court orders. On Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, it held that the FIR did not specify which protocol was violated, how and by whom, nor any obstruction of an officer or refusal to comply with a direction, citing Amit Chouhan v. State of West Bengal and decisions of other High Courts.

Concluding that the case fell within categories (1), (3) and (7) of Bhajan Lal and that it was an unavoidable inference that the petitioners were being punished for the protest, making the proceeding vexatious and frivolous, the court quashed the case dated 5th August 2021 and all consequential proceedings, including G.R. Case No. 901 of 2021. 

The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs, and a copy of the judgment was directed to be communicated forthwith to the concerned criminal court and the Officer-in-Charge of Bidhannagar North Police Station.

Appearances:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Arka Pratim Chowdhury, Ms. Puja Rajbhor and Mr. Swattik Batabyal, Advocates.

For the State: Mr. Goutam Misra, Advocate.

Case Title: Trina Halder & Ors. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors., W.P.A. No. 25798 of 2023

[Read Judgment]