Mere Gathering Of More Than 5 Persons Not "Unlawful Assembly": Madras HC Quashes Case Against Law Students Protesting Against Srilankan Govt
The Madras High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings against 11 law students accused of raising slogans against the Srilankan Government, demanding their "Tamil Ealam issues". Justice N Satish Kumar observed that the students had democratically raised protest against the inaction of the police and such a gathering could not be held unlawful. The court observed as under:At any event,...
The Madras High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings against 11 law students accused of raising slogans against the Srilankan Government, demanding their "Tamil Ealam issues".
Justice N Satish Kumar observed that the students had democratically raised protest against the inaction of the police and such a gathering could not be held unlawful. The court observed as under:
At any event, mere gathering of more than 5 persons will not amount to any offence, unless the action of such persons fit into any of the provision found in Section 141 to constitute such assembly as unlawful assembly. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that continuation of prosecution is nothing but an abuse of process of law.
The case of the prosecution was that the students who were studying in a law college, on 17th March 2014, gathered outside the Chennai Ambedkar Government Law College and raised slogans against Srilankan Government and blocked the roads. They were accused of wrongfully restraining the public movement and were thus charged under Sections 143, 145 r/w 149 of IPC and Sec.7(1) (a) Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 and 41 CP Act 1988.
The counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners made the protest in a democratic manner, and even if the entire prosecution case was taken on record, no offense would be constituted. Thus, they sought for quashing of the prosecution.
The court noted that even though usually the Court's interference is limited under Section 482 of CrPC, however, when it is satisfied that the entire materials collected by the prosecution would not constitute an offence, if the parties were directed to undergo trial, the same would be a futile exercise and it will infringe upon the right of the persons.
The court also discussed the definition of the term "Unlawful Assembly" and held that the petitioners had not committed any acts that would fall within the meaning of unlawful assembly. That is, they have not shown any criminal force to commit any mischief, crime of any offence or by way of criminal force or tried to take possession of the property or right to use of incorporeal right which is in possession of enjoyment of others or rights.
As a result, the court observed that since the protest by the petitioners would not amount to an unlawful protest, the criminal proceedings against them was to be quashed.
Case Title: Aravinth and others v. State
Case No: Crl.O.P. No.17853 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 343
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.R.Thamarai Selvan
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Govt.Advocate (Crl. side)