A Festive Gathering Met With Legal Trouble: Why the Court Intervened

In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against fifteen individuals who were charged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, for participating in an unauthorized assembly. The group had gathered on October 2, 2025, to celebrate the centenary of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) alongside the Vijayadasami festival. The case highlights the precarious balance between state-enforced public order and the fundamental rights of citizens to assemble.

The petitioners faced trial in STC No. 282 of 2026 for alleged violations under Sections 189(3), 223, 126(2), and 293 of the BNS. The state argued that the crowd had gathered without official permission, obstructing traffic and causing public inconvenience.

Where Was The Public Disturbance?

The case arrived at the High Court after the local police in Ambur filed a charge sheet mere days after the initial complaint. The petitioners challenged the FIR, arguing that no independent witnesses—only police and village administrative officials—were cited to support the claim that the assembly caused actual chaos. Counsel for the petitioners argued that the protest was a peaceful expression of their association's milestone, a sentiment protected under democratic principles.

Upon review, Justice M. Nirmal Kumar observed that the prosecution’s case lacked the necessary evidence of actual public harm. No members of the public had stepped forward to complain, nor was there any proof provided that a legally binding prohibitory order was in force or that the petitioners had received notice of one.

The Right to Assemble in a Democracy

Central to the Court’s reasoning was the protection of the right to gather. Justice Nirmal Kumar emphasized that the " Right to Dissent is the Hallmark of Democracy ," reaffirming that participation in an assembly, even under the guise of an ideological organization, cannot be automatically criminalized without concrete evidence of public threat or disobedience.

The court heavily relied on the established precedent in Jeevanandham and others Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police , which provides clear guidelines on how similar cases should be approached. The court noted that these protections against over-criminalization are essential to prevent the abuse of state machinery.

Key Observations

The judgment underscores several pivotal legal principles:

"The petitioners unlawfully assembled together to celebrate Vijayadasami festival and 100th year anniversary of their association formation. Admittedly, in this case, the occurrence took place in a public place, in public view, surprisingly no public or independent witness examined by the prosecution, which causes serious doubt on the veracity of the complaint."

" Unlawful assembly itself would not amount to commission of offense."

"The petitioners gathered together which is their fundamental right. In this case, no public lodged a complaint and no public got affected, due to the unlawful assembly by the petitioners."

"The 1st respondent Police failed to follow the guidelines issued by this Court in Jeevanandham (Cited supra)... the continuation of trial for offence... is wholly unsustainable and constitutes a clear abuse of the process of law ."

The Final Verdict: A Case Quashed

The Madras High Court allowed the criminal original petition and ordered the quashing of proceedings in STC No. 282 of 2026 . This ruling serves as a vital reminder to law enforcement agencies that the mere lack of administrative permission for a gathering does not translate into criminal intent, especially when fundamental freedoms are exercised without causing tangible public disruption. For future litigants, this decision reinforces that the burden of proving that an assembly turned criminal lies heavily on the prosecution, and mere general allegations will not suffice to sustain a criminal trial.