"No Direct Allegations Of Stone Pelting, Breaking Barricades": Jharkhand HC Quashes Proceedings Against BJP Leaders For 2023 Protests Against State Govt

The Jharkhand High Court has recently issued a ruling that quashes the criminal cases filed against 28 BJP leaders, including MP Nishikant Dubey, in connection with a protest organized against the Jharkhand government in April 2023.

Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwidevi, who presided over the case, observed, “When there is a protest against police action or inaction, the possibility of violation of fundamental rights is maximum because police is licensed to carry arms for protecting people. Misuse of such power can taken place due to mistaken belief in the absolutism of the police power or on account of lack of sensitivity to the democratic rights. 

“No direct allegation against these petitioners that they were indulged in breaking the barricade or in pelting stones or water bottles. The call was against the Government policy by the opposition leader of the State of Jharkhand. Admittedly, the intention of assembly was not intended to harm anybody, so far as these petitioners are concerned and if a fundamental right is involved," he added.

Background

The cases were filed in connection with a protest that took place on April 11, 2023, near Project Bhawan in Ranchi. The demonstration was organised by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to express opposition to the state government's policies. In response to the large gathering of BJP supporters, the district administration deployed a significant police presence, including a rapid action force, tear gas teams, and other security measures.

The FIR against the petitioners was initially registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 147 (Punishment for rioting), 148 (Rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 188 (Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant), 109 (Punishment of abetment, if the act abetted, is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment), 353 (Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty), 332 (Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty), 427 (mischief causing damage), and 323 (voluntarily causing hurt).

The charges were based on allegations that the BJP protest led to violent incidents, including attempts to breach barricades, stone-pelting, and other forms of public disturbance.

The court, while reviewing the contents of the FIR, noted that there were no specific allegations against the petitioners related to breaking barricades or throwing stones and water bottles. The court stated, “the allegations are there against the other persons of doing such thing and if that is there, for the acts of the others, the petitioners, who happened to be the top leaders of the opposition party in the State of Jharkhand, the liability cannot be fastened upon them, particularly in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

Holding peaceful demonstrations to voice grievances is a fundamental right, as enshrined under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b)

The court further emphasised the fundamental right of individuals to hold peaceful protests and demonstrations under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India.

It observed, “The right of people to hold peaceful protests and demonstrations, etc. is a fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India. Right to protest is recognized as a fundamental right under the Constitution of India. Further, this right is crucial in a democracy which rests on participation of an informed citizenry in governance and it strengthens representative democracy by enabling direct participation in public affairs where individuals and groups are able to express dissent and grievances, expose the flaws in governance and demand accountability from the State authorities as well as powerful entities.”

The court clarified that the issue was not whether the protestors' cause was right or wrong, but rather the fundamental right to express grievances. It noted, “Question is not as to whether the issue raised by the protestors is right or wrong or it is justified or unjustified. The fundamental aspect is the right which is conferred upon the affected people in a democracy to voice their grievances. Dissenters may be in minority. They have a right to express their views. A particular cause which, in the first instance, may appear to be insignificant or irrelevant may gain momentum and acceptability when it is duly voiced and debated.”

The court clarified that it would not interfere with the criminal proceedings concerning other people, noting that the investigation into the 5000 persons involved in the march would proceed in accordance with the law.

Additionally, the court referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan Versus Union of India & Anr. whereby the Supreme Court ruled that there cannot be a blanket ban on protests in Central Delhi.

While relying on the above case, the Court directed the Chief Secretary, Home Secretary, and Director General of Police of Jharkhand, along with other concerned officials, to frame guidelines regulating the number of participants in demonstrations and setting minimum distances from significant locations such as the State Legislature, High Court, schools, hospitals, and residences of dignitaries.

Case Title: Babu Lal Marandi and Ors vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 143

Click Here To Read Judgement