Right To Protest Is Hallmark Of Democracy: Madras HC Quashes Case Against Farmer

Madras: The Madras High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against an agriculturist and office-bearer of the Tamil Nadu Farmers Protection Association who was booked for participating in a hunger strike and protest demanding withdrawal of criminal cases registered against the Association's founder, holding that raising slogans and staging a protest does not by itself amount to an offence.

Justice M. Nirmal Kumar was hearing a Criminal Original Petition filed by Krishnamoorthy under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to quash proceedings in S.T.C.No.486 of 2026 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Palladam, Tiruppur District, for offences under Sections 189(2), 226 and 193(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

According to the prosecution, on 18.01.2026 the petitioner and others had assembled near the Kovilpalayam area and conducted a hunger strike and protest demanding withdrawal of criminal cases allegedly registered against one M. Easan, Advocate and Farmer Leader, the founder of the Tamil Nadu Farmers Protection Association. It was alleged that the protest was held without permission from the authorities and caused inconvenience and obstruction to the public. On a complaint by the Village Administrative Officer, Alagumalai Village, an FIR was registered by the Avinashipalayam Police Station, and a final report was subsequently filed, citing five witnesses.

The petitioner's counsel contended that the protest and hunger strike were held on private property and not on any public road, government office or prohibited area, so that the very foundation of the prosecution's case of obstruction and disturbance was legally unsustainable. It was further submitted that the petitioner had neither organised nor instigated any unlawful activity, but had merely exercised his rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution, and that there was no material to show any prohibitory order in force on the date of occurrence or that it had been communicated in the prescribed manner. Reliance was placed on the decisions in Madhan Mohan v. The State and Jeevanandham and others v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, reported in (2018) 2 LW Crl. 606, in which similar proceedings had been quashed.

The State opposed the petition, submitting that the petitioner had participated in the protest without permission, continued despite police warnings, formed an unlawful assembly, restrained others and caused public disturbance, and that a charge sheet had been filed after completion of investigation.

"Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the materials, it is admitted fact that the petitioner and others conducted a protest which is their fundamental right. In this case, no public lodged a complaint and no public got affected, due to the protest conducted by the petitioner," the Court observed, finding that the petitioner and others had only raised slogans and shown protest to press for withdrawal of the cases against M. Easan.

"A mere reading of the allegations in the final report shows that the allegations are general in nature and no specific allegations are made against the petitioner to attract the said provisions. Raising slogans and showing protest itself would not amount to commission of offence. Showing Protest is the Hallmark of Democracy, which is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution of India," the Court held.

Relying on its earlier decision in Jeevanandham, which held that the right to protest must be safeguarded and not be termed a criminal offence, the Court found that there was no material showing promulgation or communication of any prohibitory order, or any disobedience by the petitioner, and that the prosecution had failed to show that any trouble had actually occurred as a consequence of the protest. The Court held that the first respondent police had failed to follow the guidelines laid down in Jeevanandham, and that continuation of the trial for offences under Sections 189(2), 226 and 193(1) of the BNS was wholly unsustainable and amounted to an abuse of the process of law.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings in S.T.C.No.486 of 2026 as against the petitioner, closing the connected miscellaneous petition.

Appearances:

For the Petitioner: Mr. V. Raghavachari, Senior Counsel, for Mr. S. Ganesh Babu, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. A. Amarnath, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side).

Case Title: Krishnamoorthy vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police, Avinashipalayam Police Station & Anr., Crl.O.P.No.15309 of 2026