‘Mere political gathering not unlawful assembly’: Court clears BJP workers charged over temple celebrations during COVID-19

Justice L Victoria Gowri said that the present case is not case involving violence, assault, damage to public property, intimidation, or any grave act affecting public order.

The order added that the criminal Court is not a forum for the mechanical conversion of every public gathering into a penal prosecution.

Justice Gowari noted, “The State may regulate assemblies. It may prevent unlawful gatherings. It may prosecute real violations. But when the prosecution papers do not disclose the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged, the liberty of citizens cannot be made to depend upon a prolonged trial founded on vague accusations.”

‘Not case of violence, assault, damage to public property, intimidation’

• This Court is conscious of the settled principle that, at the stage of quashment, the allegations in the FIR and final report must ordinarily be taken at their face value.
• However, where the uncontroverted allegations do not disclose the commission of any offence, the High Court would be justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.
• The present case is not a case involving violence, assault, damage to public property, intimidation, or any grave act affecting public order.
• The gravamen of the prosecution is that the petitioners assembled in a public place during the COVID-19 period and allegedly celebrated a political announcement relating to the opening of temples.
• Section 143 IPC punishes membership in an unlawful assembly. To attract the said provision, the assembly must fall within Section 141 IPC and must have one of the unlawful common objects enumerated therein.
• The final report does not disclose that the petitioners assembled with any common object to overawe the Government by criminal force, resist execution of law, commit mischief or criminal trespass, obtain possession of property by force, or compel any person to do or omit to do any act.

‘Not forum for conversion of every public gathering into penal prosecution’

• Section 341 IPC deals with wrongful restraint. There must be an obstruction which prevents a person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed.
• The final report does not name any person who was restrained. It does not state the manner in which such restraint was caused.
• A vague allegation of violation of traffic rules is insufficient to constitute wrongful restraint. Hence, Section 341 IPC is not attracted.
• For an offence under Section 294(b) IPC, the prosecution must disclose that obscene words were uttered in or near a public place and that such utterance caused annoyance to others.
• In the present case, the alleged obscene words have not been reproduced.
• There is also no statement indicating that any member of the public was annoyed by such words. In the absence of these basic particulars, Section 294(b) IPC cannot survive.
• The prosecution materials do not show how the alleged act caused public nuisance in law.
• This Court does not quash the prosecution merely because the witnesses are official witnesses.
• However, when the prosecution itself lacks the essential ingredients of the offences alleged, the absence of independent witnesses further weakens the foundation of the case.
• The criminal Court is not a forum for the mechanical conversion of every public gathering into a penal prosecution.
• Public order and public health are matters of importance, particularly during a pandemic.
• At the same time, penal law demands precision, particularity and proof of statutory ingredients.
• The inherent power of this Court is meant precisely for such cases, where the continuation of proceedings would serve no legitimate prosecutorial purpose and would only burden the accused and the trial Court.

Gathering of BJP workers and case of unlawful gathering

According to the prosecution, the petitioners, being members of the Bharatiya Janata Party, had assembled in a public place during the Covid-19 period, allegedly to celebrate the announcement of the Tamil Nadu Government relating to the opening of temples on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays. The incident allegedly took place on October 15, 2021, at about 11.30 am.

It was further alleged that the petitioners and others assembled without obtaining permission from the competent authority, violated traffic rules, caused public nuisance, disobeyed the directions of the police, and thereby committed the offences alleged in the final report.

Based on the complaint lodged by the Village Administrative Officer, the police registered the FIR, and after completion of the investigation, they filed the final report, which was taken on file in 2023.

The petitioners are seeking to quash the said FIR on the grounds that the prosecution was politically motivated and that their names have been included merely because they belong to a political party.

They claimed that the alleged gathering was peaceful, without arms and without any act of violence, and therefore, the same would fall within the constitutional protection of peaceful assembly under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India. The petitioners further contend that the final report does not disclose any specific overt act against each of the petitioners and that omnibus allegations have been made without individual attribution.

It was submitted that all the witnesses are either Government officials or police personnel, and no independent public witness has been examined, though the alleged occurrence is said to have taken place in a public place.

Arguments of parties

Appearing for the petitioners, R Ramaguru submitted that the final report is a stereotyped prosecution arising out of a political gathering during the Covid-19 period.

According to him, the prosecution has failed to specify the particular prohibitory order or statutory direction allegedly violated by the petitioners. It was further submitted that mere assembly in a public place, without violence, without weapons and without any specific act of obstruction, cannot attract Section 143 IPC.

Representing the government, Additional Public Prosecutor, S Ravi, submitted that the question whether the petitioners caused public nuisance, obstructed traffic or disobeyed the police direction is a matter for trial and that this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, should not conduct a mini trial. It was therefore submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed.