Court holds that mere peaceful protest and slogan shouting without specific unlawful acts cannot sustain criminal charges under IPC and Disaster Management Act
In a significant judgment delivered on October 9, 2026, the Calcutta High Court, presided over by Justice Anuj Singh, quashed the FIR registered against Trina Halder and others in Bidhannagar North Police Station Case No. 169 of 2021. The FIR had accused the petitioners of offences punishable under Sections 143, 188, 341, 269, and 270 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, related to a protest against alleged irregularities in recruitment by the School Service Commission.
The petitioners had organized a peaceful protest on August 5, 2021, near Mayukh Bhawan, Salt Lake, raising slogans and voicing grievances against hunger, unemployment, and illegal recruitment practices. The police complaint alleged violation of COVID-19 protocols and a prohibitory order under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), obstruction of public navigation, and restraint of officials performing their duties.
Upon hearing, the Court extensively analyzed the ingredients of the offences invoked. It held that the fundamental right to peaceful assembly and free speech under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution protects such protests, provided they do not entail violence or criminal force. The Court noted that:
- Section 143 IPC (unlawful assembly) requires a common object involving criminal force or intimidation, which was absent here, as the protest was peaceful.
- Section 188 IPC necessitates disobedience to a duly promulgated order causing obstruction or danger, but the FIR did not specify the order or demonstrate actual obstruction or danger caused by the petitioners.
- Section 341 IPC (wrongful restraint) demands voluntary obstruction of an identifiable person's lawful movement, which was not particularized in the FIR.
- Sections 269 and 270 IPC, related to negligent or malignant acts spreading disease, were inapplicable as there was no allegation that the protesters were infected or committed any acts likely to spread COVID-19.
- Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act requires specific allegations of obstruction or refusal to comply with directions issued under the Act, which were not detailed in the FIR.
The Court relied on Supreme Court precedents including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Re: Ramlila Maidan Incident, reaffirming that criminal proceedings must not be allowed to proceed on bald, vague, or frivolous allegations that do not disclose a prima facie offence. The Court emphasized that mere peaceful protest and slogan shouting, even if unwelcome, do not constitute an offence, and continuation of such proceedings would amount to an abuse of process.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings, including the trial pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar. The judgment sends a strong message safeguarding democratic rights of peaceful protest and preventing misuse of law enforcement powers against dissent.
Bottom Line:
Peaceful protest and slogan shouting, without specific allegations satisfying ingredients of offences under Sections 143, 188, 341, 269, 270 IPC and Section 51 of Disaster Management Act, cannot justify continuation of criminal proceedings - FIR based on bald and vague allegations liable to be quashed under Article 226 to prevent abuse of process.
Statutory provision(s):
Indian Penal Code Sections 143, 188, 341, 269, 270; Disaster Management Act, 2005 Section 51; Constitution of India Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 226; Criminal Procedure Code Section 144
Trina Halder v. State of West Bengal, (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2993999
