Democratic Dissent Isn't Crime: Madras HC Quashes FIRs against TASMAC Protesters under S. 528 BNSS

Democratic Dissent vs. Criminal Charges: Madras High Court Clears Social Activists

In a significant ruling protecting the right to peaceful protest, the Madras High Court has quashed a criminal case registered against a group of social act who had been charged for protesting against the opening of a TASMAC liquor shop in 2017. The court emphasized that democratic dissent, in the absence of criminal force or intent, cannot be equated with an "unlawful assembly."

The Roots of the Dispute

The case originated in April 2017, when a group of 26 activists gathered in Tiruppur to voice their opposition to the opening of a TASMAC shop in their locality. The Mangalam Police Station registered an FIR (Crime No. 176 of 2017) against the protesters, alleging offenses under Sections 143 (unlawful assembly), 341 (wrongful restraint), and 188 (disobedience to a public servant’s order) of the Indian Penal Code. The subsequent legal proceedings (C.C.No.1062/2017) remained pending at the Judicial Magistrate Court No.4 for years, eventually leading the petitioners to approach the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to seek a quash.

Conflicting Arguments

The petitioners argued that their protest was a peaceful exercise of their rights. Their counsel pointed out that even at face value, the prosecution’s case failed to establish any elements of criminality. Furthermore, the defense highlighted that the Tamil Nadu government had already issued G.O.(Ms) No.409 in 2021, which mandated the withdrawal of cases registered against protesters involved in various agitations, including those against TASMAC, between 2011 and 2021.

The state, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, faced a challenge in defending the charges, as the materials on record failed to prove that the crowd had utilized criminal force or intended to commit mischief—a requirement to trigger the definition of "unlawful assembly" under Section 141 IPC.

Legal Reasoning and Judicial Precedents

The High Court relied heavily on the landmark Supreme Court ruling in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , which outlines the circumstances under which the judiciary should interfere to quash proceedings to prevent the "abuse of process of law."

The court clarified two vital points of law: 1. Defining Unlawful Assembly : The court noted that mere gathering of five or more persons does not constitute an "unlawful assembly." Prosecution must prove a "common object" to commit an offense or use criminal force. Without this evidence, such assembly remains protected under the umbrella of democratic agitation. 2. Limits on Section 188 IPC : Referencing Jeevanandam and others v. State , the court reiterated that police powers under Section 30(2) of the Police Act are regulatory in nature. They cannot be used as a "blanket power" to stifle legitimate democratic dissent by citizens.

Key Observations

The judgment serves as a stern reminder of the thresholds required for criminal prosecution. Some of the notable observations by the court include:

• "When the people gathered to show their protest against opening of TASMAC Shop in a democratic way, such a gathering, in the absence of any ingredients under Section 141 IPC, cannot be construed as unlawful assembly."
• "Continuing the prosecution is nothing but abuse of process of law."
• "The promulgation issued under Section 30(2) of the Police Act, 1861, must satisfy the test of reasonableness and it can only be in the nature of a regulatory power and not a blanket power to trifle any democratic dissent."
• "Mere launching of FIR by the prosecution itself or final report is not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the offences are made out."

The Verdict and Its Impact

Allowing the petition, the court ordered the quashing of C.C.No.1062 of 2017, effectively ending the legal ordeal for the 26 activists. This ruling reinforces the judiciary's role as a watchdog against the misuse of criminal statutes to suppress public movements. By aligning its decision with the state's own policy of withdrawing protest-related cases, the Madras High Court has reiterated that the police and lower courts must distinguish between malicious intent and the fundamental right of citizens to assemble and protest against government policies.