The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against six School Service Commission (SSC) job aspirants who were booked for protesting against alleged recruitment irregularities, ruling that a peaceful demonstration does not become an offence merely because it is unwelcome to those in authority. Justice Anuj Singh, in a judgment delivered on October 9, 2026, held that the First Information Report (FIR) lodged at Bidhannagar North Police Station failed to disclose the essential ingredients of any of the offences invoked against the protesters, including unlawful assembly, wrongful restraint, and acts likely to spread infection during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court was hearing a writ petition filed by Trina Halder and others seeking the quashing of Bidhannagar North Police Station Case No. 169 of 2021. The case arose from a protest organized on August 5, 2021, by SSC job aspirants who had gathered near Mayukh Bhawan in Salt Lake and were proceeding towards Bikash Bhawan while raising slogans to press their demands against alleged irregularities in recruitment. According to the complaint lodged by Sub-Inspector Suman Roy, the gathering violated COVID-19 protocols and an order under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The complaint further alleged that the protesters did not disperse when asked, obstructed public movement, and prevented officials from discharging their duties. Thirteen persons, including the six petitioners, were arrested.

The petitioners contended that they were exercising their fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression and to assemble peacefully under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution. They argued that the FIR did not disclose a prima facie case and that continuing the investigation would prejudice their future employment prospects. The State opposed the petition, arguing it was not maintainable.

Essentials Ingredients of Offences Not Established

Justice Anuj Singh examined each of the penal provisions invoked against the petitioners and found that the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, did not satisfy the legal requirements for any of the offences. On the charge of unlawful assembly under Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the court noted that under Section 141 IPC, an assembly of five or more persons constitutes an unlawful assembly only when its common object falls within one of the specified categories, such as using criminal force against the government or a public servant, resisting the execution of law, or committing an offence. The FIR did not disclose any such common object.

“Thus, mere protest and raising slogans cannot be said to be an unlawful common object under section 141,” the court observed. It relied on the Calcutta High Court’s earlier decision in Association for Protection of Democratic Rights v. State of West Bengal, which held that “any large assembly of demonstrator would not per se be either illegal or unconstitutional.”

With regard to Section 188 IPC (disobedience of an order promulgated by a public servant), the court noted that although the FIR referred to a prohibitory order under Section 144 CrPC, the order itself was not placed on record. The complaint also failed to explain how the protesters’ conduct caused obstruction or danger to human life. On the charge of wrongful restraint under Section 341 IPC, the FIR did not identify any specific person who was prevented from moving in a direction they were entitled to take, nor did it specify the manner or duration of such restraint.

Right to Peaceful Assembly Upheld

The court also addressed the charges under Sections 269 and 270 IPC (negligent and malignant acts likely to spread infection) and Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. It found that the FIR did not allege that any of the petitioners were infected with COVID-19 or had reason to believe they were carrying the disease. The general allegation of violating COVID-19 protocols was insufficient, as the FIR did not specify which particular protocol was violated, how it was violated, and by whom. Referring to decisions of other High Courts, the court noted that in the absence of specific guidelines alleged to have been violated, no presumption of unlawfulness arises.

Justice Anuj Singh emphasized the constitutional protection afforded to peaceful protests. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra, he observed that the right to dissent, criticise the government, and peacefully protest in a legitimate and lawful manner is integral to democracy. “Thus, a demonstration does not become an offence merely because it was unwelcome to those in authority,” the court held.

FIR and Consequential Proceedings Quashed

Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the court concluded that the present case fell within categories where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose an offence, and where the proceedings are manifestly attended by mala fides. “It is an unavoidable inference that the Petitioners are being punished for the protest, making it a vexatious and frivolous proceeding,” Justice Anuj Singh observed.

In light of the foregoing, the court quashed the FIR registered at Bidhannagar North Police Station on August 5, 2021, along with all consequential proceedings, including G.R. Case No. 901 of 2021 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar. A copy of the judgment was directed to be communicated to the concerned criminal court and the officer-in-charge of the police station. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.