Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.
Legal Services India

» Home
Friday, March 14, 2025

Liberty Can’t Be Curtailed Citing Participation In Protests: Kerala HC

Posted in: Civil Laws
Mon, Mar 10, 25, 10:49, 4 Days ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 16653
Sharmina A vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate that the liberty of citizens is sacrosanct and cannot be curtailed merely because they have participated in public protests.

It is definitely a matter of immense satisfaction to note that while according paramount priority to the personal liberty of citizens which is ostensibly also a fundamental right of every citizen as enshrined as a basic fundamental tenet under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Kerala High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Sharmina A vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate & Ors in Crl.MC.No.10742/24 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025:KER:16397 and Crime No.138/2024 of Thalapuzha Police Station, Wayanad against the Order/Judgment dated in MC NO.686 of 2024 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Perinthalmann that was finally heard on 13.02.2025 and then pronounced finally as recently as on 18.02.2025 has minced absolutely just no words whatsoever to state in no uncertain terms most unequivocally that the liberty of citizens is sacrosanct and cannot be curtailed merely because they have participated in public protests. It also must be highlighted and is really worth paying attention that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice VG Arun made the key observation while quashing an order that had directed a woman to execute a bond of Rs 50,000 along with sureties to maintain peace for one year. Very rightly so!

At the very outset, this pertinent, progressive, pragmatic and persuasive judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice VG Arun of Kerala High Court at Ernakulam sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
The challenge in this Crl.M.C is against Annexure A1 preliminary order under Section 130 of the BNSS issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Perinthalmanna requiring the petitioner to show cause why she should not be ordered to execute a bond for Rs.50,000/- with sureties to keep peace for a period of one year. The basis for issuing the order is Annexure A2 report of the Station House Officer, Kolathur Police Station stating that, by repeatedly indulging in illegal activities, petitioner is likely to cause breach of peace and disturb public tranquillity in the locality.

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 while elaborating on the facts of this leading case that:
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, among the crimes referred in Annexure A2 report, the allegation in Crime No.138 of 2024 registered at Thalapuzha Police Station is that the petitioner, along with 12 other individuals, held a procession to commemorate the death anniversary of a lady named Kavitha, who was associated with a Maoist group. The allegation in Crime No.123 of 2024 registered at the Nilambur Police Station is that on 22.01.2024, between 18:50 and 19:10 hrs, petitioner and other accused belonging to Purogamana Yuvajana Prasthanam organised a demonstration, disrupted traffic and shouted the slogan In the land of Babari, Justice is only Masjid. The 3rd crime, registered as per Annexure A5, pertains to a protest by the petitioner and 7 others against an NIA raid in Pandikkad. According to the learned counsel, voicing one's opinion and expressing dissent is every citizen’s fundamental right and petitioner’s liberty cannot be curtailed, by reason of her participation in demonstrations and voicing her opinion. It is contended that, for invoking the power under Section 126 and compelling a person to execute bond under Section 130 of BNSS, the Sub Divisional Magistrate should reach a prima facie conclusion that the activities of that person is posing imminent threat to the peace and tranquillity in the locality. In support of the contention, reliance is placed on the decisions in Kuldip Singh Chawla and Others v. The State of Bihar [1988 Supreme (Pat) 107], Ashish Khanna v. State of Bihar Through S.D.M. [2007 Supreme (Pat) 1130] and Bijay Sankar Sen and Ors. v. State of Assam and Others [2021 Supreme (Gau) 415].

Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 3 that:
According to the learned Public Prosecutor, repeated registration of crimes against the petitioner for holding demonstrations and disrupting traffic shows that she is an imminent threat to peace and tranquillity. Hence, petitioner has to be restrained, by requiring her to execute the bond under Section 130 of BNSS.

Do also note, the Bench then notes in para 4 of this balanced judgment stipulating that:
The contentions advanced give rise to the question whether petitioner’s liberty can be curtailed, by requiring her to execute bond for keeping peace for participating in demonstrations to protest against the policies of the Government. While answering this question, it has to be borne in mind that Article 19 of the Constitution guarantees to every citizen freedom of speech and expression, right to assemble peaceably without arms and to form associations or unions. Indeed, those rights are subject to reasonable restrictions and cannot be exercised contrary to public order, decency, morality or against the sovereignty, integrity and security of the State.

While citing the relevant and remarkable case laws, the Bench then hastens to add in para 5 of this brilliant judgment propounding that:
A perusal of the impugned order shows that, other than relying on Annexure A2 report, the Sub Divisional Magistrate has not formed an independent opinion that the activities of the petitioner are an imminent threat to the peace and tranquillity in the locality. As held by the Apex Court in Madhu Limaye v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate Monghyr And others [1970 3 SCC 746], even though an order directing execution of bond for preventing breach of peace may have the appearance of an administrative order, in reality it is judicial in character.

Therefore, reasons are to be stated in the order passed by the Magistrate. This Court in Santhosh M.V. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others [2014 KHC 522] has also held that, while initiating proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. (126 BNSS), Magistrate must pass a preliminary order, stating nature of information received and the relevant factors which influenced him to form an opinion that the concerned person is likely to cause imminent breach of peace, making it essential to take preventive action against that person.

Finally and far most significantly, we see that the Bench then encapsulates in para 6 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that:
The liberty of a citizen being sacrosanct, cannot be curtailed in a casual manner, by referring to crimes relating to public demonstrations. Mere participation in demonstrations, holding of banners or shouting slogans, cannot be perceived as activities in violation of the reasonable restrictions mentioned in Article 19.

Moreover, mere mentioning of the crimes pending against a person will not satisfy the requirement of giving reasons and the apprehended breach of peace must be imminent. The conduct or wrongful acts, which are projected as the reason for issuing the order must have occurred recently and must be relatable to the apprehension of likelihood of breach of peace. In the case at hand, the impugned order does not even indicate the factors that had prompted the Magistrate to form an opinion that, unless prevented, activities of the petitioner will result in breach of peace and disturb public tranquillity. For the aforementioned reasons, the Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure A1 order and all further proceedings thereon are quashed.

All said and done, the bottom-line of the aforesaid discussion is that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice VG Arun of Kerala High Court at Ernakulam has made it indubitably clear in this noteworthy judgment that the liberty of citizens is sacrosanct and cannot be curtailed merely because they have participated in public protests. It thus certainly merits no reiteration that all the courts in India must definitely must pay heed to what the Kerala High Court has held so very clearly, cogently, commendably and convincingly in this leading case! No denying!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Legal Services India

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
Present space law framework in the country. Space has heightened the curiosity of mankind for centuries. Due to the advancement in technology, there is fierce competition amongst nations for the next space war.
The scope of Section 151 CPC has been explained by the Supreme Court in the case K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy
Co-operative Societies are governed by the Central Co-operative Societies Act 1912, where there is no State Act. In West Bengal they were governed by the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act
Registration enables an NGO to be a transparent in its operations to the Government, Donors, to its members and to its urgent community.
The ingredients of Section 18 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are
Drafting of legal Agreements and Deeds in India
ST Land rules in India,West Bengal
The paper will discuss about the provisions related to liquidated damages. How the law has evolved. Difference between the provisions of England and India.
A privilege may not be a right, but, under the constitution of the country, I do not gather that any broad distinction is drawn between the rights and the privileges that were enjoyed and that were taken away.
It is most hurting to see that in India, the soldiers who hail from Jammu and Kashmir and who join forces either in Army or in CRPF or in BSF or in police or in any other forces against the will of majority
Pukhraj v/s State of Uttarakhand warned high caste priests very strongly against refusing to perform religious ceremonies on behalf of lower caste pilgrims. It took a very stern view of the still existing practice of exclusion of the SC/ST community in Haridwar.
This article aims to define delay in civil suits. It finds the general as well as specific causes leading to pendency of civil suits and over-burdening of courts. This articles suggests some solutions which are pragmatic as well as effective to reduce the burden of the courts and speed up the civil judicial process.
This article deals with importance, needs, highlights and provisions of the Surrogacy Bill 2016, which is passed by the lok sabha on 19th December 2018 .
Cross Examination In Case of Injunction Suits, Injunctions are governed by Sections 37, 38, 39 to Section 42 of Specific Relief Act.
Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah v Gujarat inability of a person to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction..
Dr.Ashok Khemka V/s Haryana upheld the integrity of eminent IAS officer because of his upright and impeccable credentials has emerged as an eyesore for politicians of all hues but also very rightly expunged Haryana Chief Minister ML Khattar adverse remarks in his Personal Appraisal Report
State of Rajasthan and others v. Mukesh Sharma has upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 8(2)(i) of the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006.
Gurmit Singh Bhatia Vs Kiran Kant Robinson the Supreme Court reiterated that, in a suit, the plaintiff is the dominus litis and cannot be forced to add parties against whom he does not want to fight unless there is a compulsion of the rule of law.
explicitly in a latest landmark ruling prohibited the use of loudspeakers in the territory without prior permission from the authorities.
The Commissioner of Police v/s Devender Anand held that filing of criminal complaint for settling a dispute of civil nature is abuse of process of law.
Rajasthan Vs Shiv Dayal High Court cannot dismiss a second appeal merely on the ground that there is a concurrent finding of two Courts (whether of dismissal or decreeing of the suit), and thus such finding becomes unassailable.
Complete Guide to Pleadings in India, get your Written statement and Plaint Drafted by highly qualified lawyers at reasonable rate.
Sushil Chandra Srivastava vs UP imposed absolute prohibition on use of DJs in the state and asked the state government to issue a toll-free number, dedicated to registering complaints against illegal use of loudspeakers. It will help control noise pollution to a very large extent if implemented in totality.
Rajasthan v/s Shri Ramesh Chandra Mundra that institutional independence, financial autonomy is integral to independence of judiciary. directing the Rajasthan Government to reconsider the two decade old proposal of the then Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court to upgrade 16 posts of its Private Secretaries as Senior Private Secretaries
The Indian Contract act, 1872 necessities significant consideration in a few of its areas. One such area of the Indian Contract act of 1872 is where if any person finds a lost good belonging to others and takes them into his custody acts as the bailee to the owner of the good.
Government has notified 63 provisions of the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act 2019 including the ones dealing with enhanced penalties
Jose Paulo Coutinho vs. Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira no attempt has been made yet to frame a Uniform Civil Code applicable to all citizens of the country despite exhortations by it. Whether succession to the property of a Goan situated outside Goa in India will be governed by the Portuguese Civil Code, 1867
In a major legal setback to Pakistan, the High Court of England and Wales rejecting rightly Pakistan's frivolous claims and ruling explicitly that the VII Nizam of Hyderabad's descendants and India can collect 35 million pounds from Londons National Westminster Bank.
Power of Attorney and the Specific Relief Act, 1963
air pollution in Delhi and even adjoining regions like several districts of West UP are crossing all limits and this year even in districts adjoining Delhi like Meerut where air pollution was never felt so much as is now being felt.
Dr Syed Afzal (Dead) v/sRubina Syed Faizuddin that the Civil Courts while considering the application seeking interim mandatory injunction in long pending cases, should grant opportunity of hearing to the opposite side, interim mandatory injunctions can be granted after granting opportunity of hearing to the opposite side.
students of Banaras Hindu University's (BHU's) Sanskrit Vedvigyan Sankay (SVDVS) went on strike demanding the cancellation of the appointment of Assistant Professor Feroze Khan and transfer him to another faculty.
Odisha Development Corporation Ltd Vs. M/s Anupam Traders & Anr. the time tested maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit which in simple and straight language means that, No party should suffer due to the act of Court.
M/S Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd v/s. State of U.P that no one can be inflicted with an adverse order, without being afforded a minimum opportunity of hearing. In other words, the Apex Court reiterated the supreme importance of the legal maxim and latin phrase titled Audi alteram partem
Ram Murti Yadav v/s State of Uttar Pradesh the standard or yardstick for judging the conduct of the judicial officer has necessarily to be strict, that the public has a right to demand virtually irreproachable conduct from anyone performing a judicial function.
Judicial Officers Being Made Scapegoats And Penalized By Inconvenient Transfers And Otherwise: SC
Desh Raj v/s Balkishan that the mandatory time-line for filing written statement is not applicable to non-commercial suits. In non-commercial suits, the time-line for written statement is directory and not mandatory, the courts have the discretion to condone delay in filing of written statement in non-commercial suits.
M/S Granules India Ltd. Vs UOI State, as a litigant, cannot behave as a private litigant, and it has solemn and constitutional duty to assist the court in dispensation of justice.
To exercise one's own fundamental right to protest peacefully does not give anyone the unfettered right to block road under any circumstances thereby causing maximum inconvenience to others.
Today, you have numerous traffic laws as well as cases of traffic violations. People know about safe driving yet they end up defying the safety guidelines. It could be anything like driving while talking on the phone, hit and run incidents, or driving under the influence of alcohol.
The legal processes are uncertain. Also, there are times when justice gets denied, and the legal outcomes get delayed. Hence, nobody wants to see themselves or their loved one end up in jail.
Arun Kumar Gupta v/s Jharkhand that judicial officer's integrity must be of a higher order and even a single aberration is not permitted. The law pertaining to the vital subject of compulsory retirement of judicial officers have thus been summed up in this noteworthy judgment.
Online Contracts or Digital Agreements are contracts created and signed over the internet. Also known as e-contracts or electronic contracts, these contracts are a more convenient and faster way of creating and signing contracts for individuals, institutions and corporate.
Re: Problems And Miseries Of Migrant Labourers has asked Maharashtra to be more vigilant and make concerted effort in identifying and sending stranded migrant workers to their native places.
Gerald Lynn Bostock v/s Clayton County, Georgia that employees cannot be fired from the jobs merely because of their transgender and homosexual identity.
This article compares two cases with similar facts, yet different outcomes and examines the reasons for the same. It revolves around consideration and validation of contracts.
Odisha Vikas Parishad vs Union Of India while modifying the absolute stay on conducting the Jagannath Rath Yatra at Puri has allowed it observing the strict restrictions and regulations of the Centre and the State Government.
Soni Beniwal v/s Uttarakhand even if there is a bar on certain matters to be taken as PIL, there is always discretion available with the Court to do so in exercise of its inherent powers.
Indian Contract Act was commenced in the year 1872 and since then, several deductions and additions have happened to the same. The following piece of work discusses about the concept of offer under the Indian Contract Act, 1872
Top