Recently the Supreme Court of India gave a very important ruling in the case of Manchu Mohan Babu v. According to a judgment rendered by the State of Andhra Pradesh, criminal prosecutions against two of the offenders that participated in a rally and a dharna were dismissed. In this judgment rendered by Justices Nagarathna and Viswanathan, the rights to peaceful assembly, freedom of speech and expression have been upheld, with the limitations under which criminal proceedings based on such action can be dismissed, having been explained.
Case in Point Manchu Mohan Babu and Manchu Vishnu Vardhan Babu
It was a case of two appellants, Manchu Mohan Babu and his son, Manchu Vishnu Vardhan Babu who are the Chairman of Sri Vidyaniketan Educational Institutions and his son, respectively. During the General Elections in Andhra Pradesh held in March 2019, there was a Model Code of Conduct in place. The appellants, through staff members and students, held a rally and dharna on the Tirupati-Madanapalli Road to complain about the state government not paying the fee of the students.
The police, on a complaint of one of the local officials, put an FIR against the appellants and others on the basis that they had a created a public nuisance and obstructed traffic. The complaints involved crimes under Section 290, 341 and 171F and read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 34 of the Police Act, 1861. The case proceeded to the stage of chargesheet being filed and the petition by the appellants to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to quash the proceedings were not allowed.
Examination by the Supreme Court over the Legal Provisions
The Supreme Court considered that by taking the allegation against the appellants at face value, did it amount to the supposed crimes? The Court was very particular with every section of the IPC and the Police Act the charges were framed under.
First, the Court has referred to Section 290 of the IPC which is about the “punishment of the public nuisance”. This part relates to nuisance that constitutes an offence that is not punishable by the code. It was held by the Court that the text of the FIR and chargesheet did not reveal any activity that would constitute a common injury, danger and annoyance to the people or to any group of people.
The Court then referred to the Section 341 in the IPC covering the aspects of “punishment of wrongful restraint “. Wrongful restraint: this is the obstruction of an individual willingly, to prevent a person going in a direction of which he/she has a right to go. The Court ruled that the allegations did not indicate any voluntary obstruction of that sort.
Section 171F is the third of the IPC dealing with “Punishment on undue influence and personation at an election”. It was indicated by the Court that the protest was against the reimbursement of student fees and not to have an influence on the electoral process. The charges did not imply that there had been any undue influence at elections, impersonation at elections or any act that has been done to obstruct the free exercise of electoral rights.
Lastly, the Court questioned the Section 34 of the Police Act, 1861, which provides punishment to certain crimes in the roads that results in obstruction, inconvenience or annoyance. The Court noted that where this section contains eight actions including the slaughtering of cattle, cruelty of animals, or impeding the passengers using the conveyances. The Court came to the revelation that what the appellants were involved did not constitute any of these mentioned offenses.
Fundamental Rights of the Court
One of the pillars of the ruling of the Court was that the appellants were practicing their basic rights. The Court pointed out that such a rally and dharna, is rendered harmless by being peaceable and being unarmed is the fulfillment of right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to association peacefully. The implicit connotation in the judgment of the Court is that these constitutional rights are bestowed to the people with utmost care and caution, and the criminal action cannot be used to suppress legitimate dissent in any capacity.
According to the Court, the criminal proceedings instigated amounted to a miscarriage of the rule of law in order to frustrate the fundamental rights under the Constitution enshrined in the fundamental rights of the appellants. Through this judgment, the Court re-stated that the High Court has not applied the adequately (a test developed by the Court and known as the Bhajan Lal test as it gives guidelines to quash criminal proceedings). The Court used this and also other precedents like cases of Pepsi Foods Ltd. where it is said that, the courts can use their powers to quash proceedings when the allegations do not prima facie constitute any offence.
The Conclusions and the Larger Significance
With regard to its conclusion, the Supreme Court held that all the materials required to constitute all the alleged offenses were simply “missing” in the FIR and chargesheet. It explained that despite the case of the state being taken on its face value, it was not possible to deduce that the appellants committed any of the crimes. The Court held that the continuance of a criminal prosecution is “not likely to serve any useful purpose and that it is not expedient nor in the interest of justice that the prosecution should be suffered to go on.”
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeals making it clear that they did not uphold the judgment of the High Court; plus, quashed the FIR and the criminal proceedings of Manchu Mohan Babu and Manchu Vishnu Vardhan Babu.
This is such a wise judgment that reminds us that judiciary has a key role to play in safeguarding constitutional freedoms. It earns a precedent that that the exercise of the right to protest even in the Model Code of Conduct should not be criminalized except under instances it is capable of meeting the precise and provable legal definition of the crimes claimed. The decision supports the position that criminal court should not be utilized as an instrument of choking peaceful masses and rallies. This is a groundbreaking ruling that is bound to be used in subsequent cases of the need to balance between public order and a right to protest in such cases.
Author
For any queries or to publish an article or post on our platform, please email us at contact@legalmaestros.com.
