Madras High Court Quashes FIR Against Hindu Munnani Activists for Peaceful Protest, Upholding Constitutional Rights

Court's Decision and Context

In a significant ruling on December 3, 2025, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, presided over by Honourable Mrs. Justice L. Victoria Gowri, allowed a Criminal Original Petition (Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 21388 of 2025) filed by several accused persons. The court quashed the First Information Report (FIR) in Crime No. 428 of 2025, registered by the K. Pudur Police Station in Madurai, insofar as it pertained to the petitioners—arrayed as Accused Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, and 12. The FIR had invoked Sections 189, 389, 5, and 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 145, 151, and 283 of the Indian Penal Code) for alleged participation in an unlawful protest. The decision emphasizes the protection of peaceful assembly as a fundamental right, quashing the case due to the absence of specific allegations and apparent discriminatory treatment by authorities.

Overview of the Case

The petitioners, affiliated with the Hindu Munnani organization, were accused of participating in a protest on August 10, 2020, which the prosecution deemed unlawful. Out of 85 named accused in the FIR, the petitioners sought relief under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C.), arguing that the FIR was fundamentally flawed and violated constitutional protections. The core legal question was whether a peaceful expression of opinion could be criminalized without evidence of overt acts amounting to cognizable offenses, especially amid claims of selective permission granted to other groups for similar activities at the same venue.

Arguments Presented by Both Sides

The petitioners, represented by Mr. Niranjan S. Kumar, contended that the protest was entirely peaceful and fell under the guaranteed rights to freedom of speech and expression [Article 19(1)(a)] and peaceful assembly [Article 19(1)(b)] of the Constitution. They highlighted the FIR's vagueness, noting no specific overt acts—like violence, obstruction, or public nuisance—were attributed to them, thus failing to meet the ingredients of the invoked sections. Additionally, they alleged discriminatory treatment under Article 14, as police had permitted a "Religious Harmony Group" to protest at the same location on the same day but denied permission to their group without reason. Reliance was placed on precedents such as Balasubramanian and Others vs. State and Others (MANU/TN/4515/2023), Jeevarathinam and Others vs. State (2018 (2) MLJ (Crl) 606), and Javed Hajam vs. State of Maharashtra (2024 Supreme Court 187), which affirm that peaceful protests cannot be penalized absent specific criminal elements.

In opposition, the State, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. S. Ravi, argued that the FIR was registered based on a complaint and the investigation was at an early stage. They urged the petitioners to participate in the probe rather than seek premature quashing, maintaining that the assembly was unlawful.

Court's Reasoning and Legal Precedents

Justice Gowri meticulously analyzed the FIR, observing: "A careful reading of the FIR reveals that no specific overt act has been attributed to the petitioners. The FIR merely alleges that the petitioners participated in a protest organised by their political organisation. There is no allegation of violence, obstruction, public nuisance or disturbance." The court underscored that Sections 145 IPC (joining unlawful assembly after dispersal order), 151 IPC (promoting cognizable offense), and 283 IPC (causing public obstruction or danger) require concrete evidence, which was absent here.

Drawing on constitutional principles, the judgment reiterated the Supreme Court's stance in Javed Hajam that "peaceful protest is a recognised democratic right, and criminal prosecution cannot be launched unless the alleged act squarely falls within the ingredients of a penal offence." The selective denial of permission was deemed prima facie arbitrary, violating equality under Article 14. Distinguishing from cases involving actual violence, the court held that invoking criminal law on "vague and omnibus allegations" to suppress peaceful expression constitutes an abuse of process, echoing Balasubramanian and Jeevarathinam , where similar FIRs against non-violent assemblies were quashed to prevent misuse of law.

A pivotal excerpt from the order states: "Criminal law cannot be invoked on vague and omnibus allegations, particularly when the allegations seek to criminalise peaceful expression. The present FIR appears to have been registered mechanically and without application of mind."

Final Decision and Implications

The petition was allowed, quashing the FIR against the petitioners and closing the connected miscellaneous petition. This ruling reinforces safeguards against overreach in protesting peaceful dissent, particularly in politically charged contexts. It signals to law enforcement the need for impartiality in granting permissions and cautions against FIRs lacking specificity, potentially setting a precedent for similar cases involving freedom of assembly. For activists and organizations like Hindu Munnani, it affirms that democratic expression remains shielded unless it crosses into illegality, promoting a balanced approach to public order and rights.

This decision, delivered on December 3, 2025, underscores the judiciary's role in upholding constitutional freedoms amid evolving challenges to public protests.