‘Protest hallmark of democracy’: Court drops case against farmer leader over hunger strike

The petition challenged the chargesheet arising out of a 2026 FIR registered by the Avinashipalayam Police in connection with a hunger strike held on January 18, 2026.

“Showing protest is the hallmark of Democracy, which is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution of India,” the court said on June 18, holding that merely raising slogans and staging a protest would not, by itself, amount to the commission of any criminal offence.

The case arose from a hunger strike organised by members of the Tamil Nadu Farmers Protection Association demanding the withdrawal of criminal cases allegedly registered against the association’s founder, advocate and farmer leader, one M Easan. Police alleged that the protest was held without prior permission and caused inconvenience to the public, leading to registration of offences under Sections 189(2) (being a member of an unlawful assembly), 226 (attempt to commit suicide to compel or restrain the exercise of lawful power by a public servant) and 193(1) (liability of the owner or occupier of land where an unlawful assembly or riot takes place) of  the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Justice M Nirmal Kumar of the Madras High Court noted that the prosecution itself could not point to any complaint from the public claiming to have been affected by the protest. (File image)

Protest over criminal cases

According to the prosecution, several persons, including Krishnamoorthy, assembled near Kovilpalayam in Tiruppur district on January 18, 2026, and staged a hunger strike demanding the withdrawal of criminal cases allegedly registered against Easan and others.

The police claimed that the gathering had been organised without permission from the authorities and obstructed the free movement of the public. Following a complaint lodged by the village administrative officer of Alagumalai village, an FIR was registered and, after investigation, a chargesheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Palladam.

Petitioner’s arguments

Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the protest was conducted peacefully on private property and not on any public road, government office or prohibited area. It was submitted that Krishnamoorthy, an agriculturist and office-bearer of the Tamil Nadu Farmers Protection Association, had merely exercised his constitutional rights to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution.

The petitioner also contended that there was no evidence of any prohibitory order being in force on the date of the protest and that the police had ignored earlier judgments of the high court, particularly Jeevanandham vs State, which laid down safeguards against indiscriminate prosecution of peaceful protesters.

State’s stand

Opposing the plea, the state submitted that the petitioner had participated in the protest without obtaining prior permission from the authorities. It argued that despite police warnings, the protesters continued their agitation, causing obstruction and inconvenience to the public. The prosecution maintained that the investigation had been completed and a final report had been filed, citing five witnesses.

Court’s findings

• After examining the records, Justice Kumar noted that the prosecution itself could not point to any complaint from members of the public claiming to have been affected by the protest.
• The court observed that there was also no material to establish that any prohibitory order had been promulgated and communicated to the public before the demonstration.
• “It is an admitted fact that the petitioner and others conducted a protest, which is their fundamental right,” the court noted.
• The judge further held that the allegations contained in the final report were general in nature and did not disclose any specific overt act by the petitioner that would attract the penal provisions invoked by the police.
• “Mere raising of slogans and showing protest itself would not amount to commission of offence,” the court observed.

Reliance on earlier judgment

The high court relied on its earlier decision in Jeevanandham vs State, which had recognised the constitutional importance of peaceful protests and laid down guidelines to prevent unnecessary criminal prosecution of demonstrators.

Justice Kumar observed that the investigating agency had failed to follow those guidelines. The court also noted that the prosecution had failed to show that any untoward incident or public disorder had occurred because of the protest.

Holding that continuation of the criminal case would amount to an abuse of the process of law, the court found the prosecution legally unsustainable.

Final directions

Allowing the petition, the Madras High Court quashed the proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Palladam, as against Krishnamoorthy. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.