Rail Roko Protest | "Citizens Have Right To Protest Against Govt Policies/ Inaction In A Democracy W/O Committing An Offence": Allahabad HC Modifies Ex-MP's Sentence

Stressing that in democracy under our Constitution, people have the right to protest against Government policies/action/inaction, provided the protest does not lead to the commission of an offence by the protesters, the Allahabad High Court today modified the sentence awarded to Ex-MP Annu Tandon and others in connection with a 'Rail Roko Protest' Case.

The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that except for detaining the train for 15 minutes, there was no damage to private and public property by the protesters and by and large, it was a peaceful and symbolic protest.

With this, the Court found the imprisonment of two years awarded by the Special Judge, MP/MLA/Additional Sessions Judge to Tandon as unwarranted and, therefore, the impugned judgment and order was modified to the extent that the appellants were sentenced with a fine only.

Regarding the right to protest of the citizens, the Court very categorically observed that in a democratic polity governed by a written Constitution, people have the right to protest against the Government's policies, and perceived atrocities and that they have rights for demonstration, agitation, and staging a protest. 

However, emphasizing that this right is not an absolute right, and it is subject to reasonable restriction, the Court further remarked thus:

"If the law prohibits or restricts exercise of this right in certain ways and manners, then such a law would amount to putting the reasonable restriction in the exercise of the said right. The citizens of this country are not permitted to violate a law enacted by the legislation while exercising their right of protest, freedom of speech and expression."

The case in brief 

The undisputed facts are that the appellants were leading the protest along with 150-200 Congress workers as they were staging a protest with flags and banners of the Congress Party in their hands and demanding that the City Magistrate, Unnao should come there to receive the memorandum in the name of the President of India.

However, no one alleged that the same was a violent protest, however, the fact remains that Train No.18191 UP was detained by the protesters, including the appellants, and as per the prosecution case, when the train reached the railway overbridge, the protesters in large number came on the railway track and the driver slowed down the train and stopped it finding a large number of protesters on the track. The train remained stopped for about 15 minutes.

Tandon, along with the then district president Surya Narayan Yadav, city president Amit Shukla, and Youth Congress Ankit Parihar were sentenced to two years in imprisonment and a fine of 25-25 thousand rupees was also imposed against them. Challenging the same judgment and order, they all moved to the High Court.

Court's observations 

Now, the sole question before the Court was - whether the said incident would come within the definition of Section 174(a) of the Railways Act [Obstructing running of train, etc] or not. 

Perusing this particular section, the Court noted that if any Railway servant or any other person obstructs any train by squatting or picketing or during Rail Roko Agitation and Bandh etc., the offence under Section 174(a) of the Railways Act would get attracted. In other words, as per provisions of Section 174(a) of the Railways Act, if the running of the train is obstructed by squatting or picketing, this would attract the offence under Section 174(a) of the Railways Act.

Now, the Court had to determine as to whether the offence under Section 174(a) of the Railways Act was committed by the appellants or not.

In this regard, the Court took into account the evidence of the Driver of the train, who had mentioned very categorically said that he had seen a large number of people having Congress Party flags and banners standing on the railway track on the date, time, and the place of the incident, and then he had to slow down the train and had to stop the train near the railway over bridge.

"A large number of people on railway track staging protest would amount to picketing. It has also come in the evidence that as soon as the train got stopped, several persons/Congress workers climbed on the engine of the train. Appellant no.1, Smt. Annu Tandon and other appellants were persuaded to come down from the engine of the train and the railway track was cleared...Even if a peaceful agitation/protest can lead to obstruction of running of any train by squatting or picketing or during any Rail Roko Agitation or bandh, the same would amount to an offence under Section 174(a) of the Railways Act. It is no one's case that the protest was violent, but the fact remains that the protesters, including the appellants, had stopped the train for 15 minutes by picketing on the railway track and climbed on the engine of the train when it was stopped," the Court further remarked as it held that the offence under Section 174(a) of the Railways Act was clearly established.

However, the Court modified the sentence from two years of imprisonment to a fine only, and subject to this modification of the impugned judgement and order, the appeal was allowed in part.

Case title - Annu Tandon and three others v. State Through Railway Protection Force [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 638 of 2021]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 407

Click Here To Read/Download order