Introduction

In a crucial ruling that reaffirms the fundamental right to peaceful protest, the Goa bench of the Bombay High Court observed that any attempt to stifle or dilute this right would mark a sad day for democracy. The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Mahesh Sonak, underscored that the state should not initiate prosecutions merely to suppress democratic agitations unless they turn violent.

This ruling comes in the wake of an FIR filed against two members of the Revolutionary Goans Party (RGP) and nearly 300 protestors who staged a demonstration outside the Valpoi Police Station in January 2021 against the proposed IIT in the city. The judgment sets a significant precedent in protecting the right to peaceful assembly, as enshrined under Article 19(1)(b) of the Indian Constitution.

The Importance of the Right to Protest in a Democracy

The right to protest is a cornerstone of any democratic society. It enables citizens to express dissent, demand accountability, and push for policy changes. Article 19(1)(b) guarantees the right to assemble peaceably and without arms, reinforcing the democratic principle that governments must be responsive to the people.

While governments can impose reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) in the interest of public order, sovereignty, or national security, these limitations must be justified. The court’s ruling makes it clear that vague charges lacking essential ingredients to constitute an offense cannot be used as a tool to suppress legitimate protests.

The Case: Revolutionary Goans Party Protest in Valpoi

The case involved two RGP members, Tukaram Parab and Rohan Kalangutkar, who led nearly 300 protestors outside Valpoi Police Station. The protestors raised slogans and allegedly threatened to storm the police station. Based on these allegations, they were booked under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including:

• Section 143 (Unlawful Assembly)
• Section 145 (Continuation of Unlawful Assembly)
• Section 147 (Rioting)
• Section 341 (Wrongful Restraint)
• Section 186 (Obstructing Public Servants)
• Section 353 (Assault on Public Servants)
• Section 120-B (Criminal Conspiracy)
• Section 149 (Vicarious Liability for Unlawful Assembly)

However, the court found that the evidence on record failed to substantiate these allegations.

Bombay High Court’s Observations

The Bombay High Court quashed the FIR and chargesheet against the accused, emphasizing the following key points:

1. Absence of Essential Ingredients for an Offense: The allegations in the FIR did not meet the threshold required to invoke the penal provisions under IPC. Mere presence at a protest does not automatically translate to an unlawful assembly or rioting.
2. Distinction Between Peaceful Protest and Criminal Acts: The court ruled that prosecution must differentiate between lawful protests and acts of violence. The state cannot blur these lines to suppress dissent.
3. Abuse of Judicial Process: The court noted that continuing prosecution in such cases would amount to an abuse of the judicial process and could have a chilling effect on democratic rights.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling sets a strong precedent, reinforcing the idea that peaceful protests cannot be criminalized based on vague allegations. The decision also serves as a warning against the misuse of law enforcement to suppress dissent.

Moreover, it highlights the judiciary’s role as the guardian of constitutional rights, ensuring that citizens can freely express their grievances without fear of arbitrary prosecution.

- Advertisement -

Similar Precedents and Global Perspective

India has a long history of peaceful protests shaping its political landscape, from the freedom movement led by Mahatma Gandhi to contemporary protests on issues like environmental policies, labor rights, and citizenship laws. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the right to protest, provided it remains non-violent.

Internationally, the United Nations Human Rights Council recognizes peaceful assembly as a fundamental human right. Countries with strong democratic traditions, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, also protect the right to protest under their respective legal frameworks.

Conclusion

The Bombay High Court’s ruling is a victory for democratic values and the right to dissent. It reinforces the principle that the state must not misuse its authority to curb lawful protests. This decision not only safeguards individual liberties but also strengthens the democratic fabric of India. As the country continues to evolve, ensuring that citizens can freely voice their opinions without undue restrictions remains essential for a vibrant democracy.

This judgment is a milestone in safeguarding civil liberties and ensuring that democratic rights remain intact. It sends a clear message that constitutional rights cannot be trampled upon under the guise of law enforcement.

https://wp.me/peEAVD-4Ea