Jharkhand High Court Quashes FIR Against Babulal Marandi, Arjun Munda, and Other BJP Leaders, Upholds Right to Protest

Ranchi, Jharkhand – In a significant ruling championing democratic principles, the Jharkhand High Court has quashed an FIR and all subsequent criminal proceedings against senior Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders, including former Chief Ministers Babulal Marandi and Arjun Munda, and many others. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary held that the continuation of the criminal case, which stemmed from a political rally, would amount to an abuse of the process of law, as none of the alleged offences were made out against the petitioners.

---

Background of the Case

The case originated from an 'Akrosh Rally' organized by the BJP's Youth Wing on August 23, 2024, for which the administration had granted permission. An FIR (Lalpur P.S. Case No. 203 of 2024) was registered based on a complaint by an Executive Magistrate. The FIR alleged that BJP leaders delivered provocative speeches, inciting rally participants to 'gherao' (picket) the Chief Minister's residence and break police barricades.

The ensuing confrontation led to protestors breaking two of the three layers of barricades, resulting in the police using water cannons, tear gas, and stun grenades to disperse the crowd. The FIR also mentioned that several police personnel sustained minor injuries and stones were pelted by unidentified persons. Consequently, the BJP leaders were charged with serious offenses including rioting, attempt to murder, assault on public servants, and criminal conspiracy under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Arguments from Both Sides

Petitioners' Arguments: Representing the BJP leaders, Advocate Prashant Pallav argued that the FIR was a malicious attempt to suppress the fundamental right to protest, guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution. He contended that since the administration had permitted the assembly, it could not be deemed "unlawful." He emphasized that there were no specific allegations against any of the petitioners for causing physical harm or damage and that the heavy police barricading was designed to provoke the participants.

State's Arguments: The state, represented by the Additional Advocate General, vehemently opposed the plea. It was argued that the petitioners' provocative speeches incited the crowd to commit unlawful acts, leading to violence against police personnel. The state presented photographs and injury reports of the police officers to substantiate its claim that the offenses were prima facie made out and the investigation should not be stalled at a nascent stage.

Court's Reasoning and Legal Principles Applied

The High Court meticulously analyzed the allegations against the established principles of criminal law and constitutional freedoms. Justice Choudhary underscored the importance of dissent in a healthy democracy, citing Supreme Court precedents.

On the Right to Protest: The court heavily relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Anita Thakur and Others. Vs. Government of Jammu & Kashmir , stating, "a distinguishing feature of any democracy is the space offered for legitimate dissent... the right to peaceful protest is now recognised as a fundamental right in the Constitution." The court observed that for a vibrant democracy, opposition parties are expected to raise public issues through rallies and protests.

On the Alleged Offences: The judgment systematically dismantled the charges leveled in the FIR: * Unlawful Assembly and Rioting (Sec. 191 BNS): The court found no evidence of a common object to commit an offense. Since the rally was pre-approved, the assembly was not unlawful. The court noted that merely calling for a 'gherao' of the Chief Minister's residence, in the absence of a prohibitory order, is "part of the democratic process." * Attempt to Murder (Sec. 109 BNS): The court deemed the inclusion of this section "unnecessary and uncalled for," as the allegations did not remotely attract the ingredients of the offense. * Hurt and Assault on Public Servant (Sec. 115, 121, 132 BNS): The court pointed out the absence of any direct allegation or evidence showing that any of the petitioners personally caused hurt or used criminal force against any public servant.

In a pivotal observation, the court suggested political motivation behind the FIR. It stated:

"So it is needless to mention that in their over zealousness to put the leaders of the opposition to trouble and to stifle the voice of the opposition, the F.I.R. has been drafted with skill and dexterity but this is a case where the Court can read between the lines..."

Final Verdict and Implications

Finding that none of the offenses listed in the FIR were made out against the petitioners even if the allegations were taken at face value, the High Court concluded that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would be an abuse of legal process.

Accordingly, the court quashed the FIR (Lalpur P.S. Case No. 203 of 2024) and all related proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate in Ranchi, but only concerning the petitioners named in the writ petitions. The decision serves as a powerful judicial check on the potential misuse of criminal law to quell political dissent and reinforces the constitutional protection afforded to peaceful assembly and protest.