It is most heartening to note that while striking the right chord by not dithering to hold most unequivocally in favour of the right to protest, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has in a most learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled Arunkanth vs Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board in W.P.(MD)No.12980 of 2023 and W.P(MD)No.10985 of 2023 that was pronounced on August 1, 2023 minced just no words to hold that the right to protest for a common cause is a fundamental right of each and every citizen of the country.

This was held so while considering a writ petition challenging the refusal to employ the petitioner in the police department due to a criminal case that was filed against him. We need to note that the petitioner was neither acquitted due to the benefit of doubt nor due to the complainant’s hostility. Rather, he was accused of a crime in an earlier stage that never culminated in the filing of a charge sheet.

It must also be noted that the case Crime No. 567 of 2017 on the file of Srivilliputhur Town Police Station was closed based on a High Court’s order dated 01.02.2022 in Crl.O.P(MD)No.2156 of 2022 which had explicitly mentioned that it was only a protest and did not have any criminal implications and death of a student by the name of Anitha had made the whole issue very emotional. The Court directed the authorities to give an appointment order to the men whose application to the post of Grade-II Police Constable was rejected on the ground that he had participated in protests against the NEET examination during his college days.

At the very outset, this refreshing, remarkable and recent judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench of Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mrs Justice L Victoria Gowri sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
The present Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order passed by the third respondent, dated 16.05.2023 and consequently direct the respondents to issue an appointment order to the petitioner and send him for training for the post of Grade II Police Constables (Armed Reserve, Tamil Nadu Special Force, Jail Warder and Firemen) with effect from the date of original selection within the period stipulated by this Court.

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 3 that:
The petitioner completed 10th standard in the year, 2013 and subsequently, completed 12th standard in the year 2015 and he also qualified in B.Com (CA) in the year 2018. On 16.07.2022, the petitioner applied for the post of Grade-II Constable. He participated in the written examination on 27.11.2022 and he got qualified in the same. Thereafter, the respondents called the petitioner for physical efficiency test on 07.02.2023. He scored 65 marks out of 70 marks in the written examination and 24 marks out of 24 in the physical efficiency test and totally, he got 89 marks in the written examination and physical efficiency test. While so, during the month of April, 2023, he was called for medical examination. In the meanwhile, on 16.05.2023, the third respondent passed the impugned order mentioning that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case which was dropped for further action and on that basis, he was not selected by citing the involvement in the criminal case and his selection was rejected. Challenging the same, this Writ Petition came to be filed.

It is worth noting that the Bench while citing the relevant case law points out in para 7 that:
The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in a batch of cases in W.A(MD)Nos.938 of 2020 etc., batch cases, dated 05.06.2023 (The Director General of Police and others Vs. K.Indhu Kumar) while dealing with similar matters as far as similar of this case is concerned, has held as follows:-

19. In the light of the above said deliberations, the preposition of law could be summarized as follows:

(a) In case of honourable acquittal, discharge, case closed as mistake of fact, quashing of F.I.R/Charge Sheet before the date of police verification, the same should be considered in favour of the candidate in the current selection itself.

Most significantly, the Bench minces absolutely just no words to unequivocally mandate in para 8 stating that:
The writ petitioner in this case while he was a student participated in the protest organized by fellow students protesting as against the NEET examination and the right to protest for a common cause is a fundamental right which is available to each and every citizen of this Country and for the purpose of participating in the said protest, the said crime number came to be filed.

In Crl.O.P(MD)No. 2156 of 2022, dated 01.02.2022 filed by one of the accused in the said crime number, the learned Single Judge of this Court has rightly observed that the alleged accused in the said crime did not indulge in any act of violence and on the death of a student by name Anitha, the whole issue went emotional across the State and bound by the emotional outrage which caught across the State, the entire student community across the State indulged in protest.

As a result of which, all the students participated in the said protest and there is no criminal implication for having participated in the said protest and on that basis, the F.I.R came to be quashed. However, without considering the fact that the said crime number has already been quashed and consequently, the case was also referred on the basis of the High Court order, the appointing authorities, without application of mind, rejected the candidature of the petitioner stating that the persons who are acquitted under benefit of doubt or hostility of complaint will be treated as involved in criminal case and he will not be considered for appointment as per Rule 14(b) of TNSPSS Rules or Rule 13 of TNPSS Rules.

However, the petitioner was neither acquitted on the benefit of doubt or hostility of the complainant, but the crime which was registered as against him in an earlier stage and never culminated in the filing of a charge-sheet and it was closed on the basis of the High Court order, where the High Court has already held that it was only a protest and it cannot have any criminal implication. The respondent authorities failed to consider the fact that there are no other criminal antecedents as against the petitioner and this particular crime has nothing to do with any criminal implication as far as the petitioner is concerned and he had only exercised his fundamental right to protest by participating in the protest organized by his fellow students and definitely, it will not have any implication as to the nature of the job for which he has applied to as Grade-II Police Constable.

As a corollary, the Bench then directs in para 9 that:
In view of the same and on the basis of the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court and the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has also relied upon the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sathish Chandra Yadav Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1300 while dealing the batch of writ appeals, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned order, dated 16.05.2023 passed by the third respondent.

What’s more, the Bench then further directs in para 10 that:
Accordingly, the impugned order, dated 16.05.2023 passed by the third respondent is quashed and subsequently, directing the respondents to issue an appointment order to the petitioner and send him for training to the post of Grade-II Police Constable with effect from the date of original selection within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 11 that:
With the above observation, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

All told, we thus see that the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has set the record straight that the right to protest for a common cause is a fundamental right of each and every citizen of the country under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. But let us be very clear in our mind that the right to protest can never under any circumstances mean the unfettered right to block railways, roads and necessary means of communication links like airports etc nor indulge in violence as we cannot be unmindful of the irrefutable fact that there are restrictions also imposed in the Constitution itself in Article 19 and in this leading case the petitioner was not guilty of blocking railway lines or roads or any other means of communication links nor indulged in violence of any kind while protesting along with other college going students and so his case definitely deserved to be considered sympathetically and was accordingly done as we have seen also while discussing it quite in detail as stated hereinabove. No denying it!

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