Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. We can appreciate that holding peaceful demonstration in order to air their grievances and to see that their voice is heard in the relevant quarters is the right of the people. Such a right can be traced to the fundamental freedom that is guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b) and 19(1)(c) of the Constitution. Article 19(1)(a) confers freedom of speech to the citizens of this country and, thus, this provision ensures that the petitioners could raise slogan, albeit in a peaceful and orderly manner, without using offensive language. Article 19(1)(b) confers the right to assemble and, thus, guarantees that all citizens have the right to assemble peacefully and without arms.

10. In view of above submission of learned counsel appearing for the parties this Court has gone through the materials on record including the F.I.R as well as the impugned orders.

11. In the F.I.R the allegations are made that the petitioner who happened to be a Member of Parliament was demonstrating along with others and even one of the police official who is the informant was prevented to pass through from the site of demonstration. In the F.I.R itself it has been disclosed that on the request of this petitioner, the crowd dispersed. Further in the entire F.I.R, there is no allegation of overt act with any of the public servant. It has also been disclosed that while the Deputy Commissioner was passing through, he was also stuck in jam however it has not been stated that the Deputy Commissioner who was stuck has ordered the crowd to disperse. In this background, if peaceful demonstration in a democratic country, like India was going on, on the basis of said F.I.R a sitting Member of Parliament and others can be prosecuted or not? The prosecution is required to be on the facts and circumstances of each case. Had it been a case that any overt act has been made by any of the member, certainly the prosecution would have been maintained. However, if a peaceful demonstration was going on, certainly certain protection is there of a citizen of this country under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India confers right to freedom of speech to the citizen of this country and in view of this protection, a citizen is entitled to raise slogan and peaceful demonstration without using the offensive language. Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India confers right to assemble and thus, an assembly can be peaceful. Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India is for movement freely through out the territory. In light of Article 19 of the Constitution of India, if there is offensive language, there is no hoolagism, the protection is there and this aspect of the matter has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anita Thakur v. State of J&K, (2016) 15 SCC 525(supra). In the case in hand, there is no allegation of any overt act either by the petitioner or by any person who was present at the site of demonstration and in that circumstances, whether section 353 I.P.C can be maintained or not that has been answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka(supra). In view of application of the said section, there must be an act of threatening to another person or causing injury to the person or damage to property of the person threatened. Coming to the facts of the present case, in the entire contents of the F.I.R there is no such allegation of criminal force or assault to the public servant and in view of that section 353 I.P.C is not attracted in the case in hand.