Kerala High Court Upholds Right to Protest: Mere Participation in Demonstrations Not a Violation of Reasonable Restrictions Under Article 19

In a significant judgment, the Kerala High Court underscored the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, emphasizing that mere participation in demonstrations, holding banners, or shouting slogans does not inherently violate the reasonable restrictions imposed on these rights. The court asserted that such forms of expression are protected under the Constitution, and any curtailment of these liberties must not be undertaken casually.

The case in question involved a petitioner who challenged an order issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM). The SDM had directed her to show cause as to why she should not be mandated to execute a bond of fifty thousand rupees, with sureties, to maintain peace for a period of one year under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This directive was based on a police report alleging that the petitioner was consistently involved in illegal activities likely to cause a breach of peace and disturb public tranquility.

The police report highlighted three specific incidents involving the petitioner:

Organizing a procession to commemorate the death anniversary of a woman associated with a Maoist group.
Leading a demonstration where slogans such as "In the land of Babari, Justice is only Masjid" were chanted.
Protesting against a raid conducted by the National Investigation Agency (NIA).

In her defense, the petitioner contended that the criminal cases filed against her were solely due to her exercising her fundamental right to express dissent through peaceful demonstrations. She argued that such expressions of opinion are protected under Article 19, which guarantees the freedom of speech and expression, the right to assemble peaceably without arms, and the right to form associations or unions, subject to reasonable restrictions.

The Public Prosecutor, however, argued that the petitioner’s actions, which included organizing processions and disrupting traffic, posed a constant threat to peace and tranquility. The prosecution maintained that the repeated involvement of the petitioner in such activities justified the SDM's order to prevent potential breaches of public peace.

Upon reviewing the case, Justice V.G. Arun observed that the SDM had issued the show-cause notice without forming an independent opinion on whether the petitioner’s activities genuinely threatened public peace and tranquility. The court emphasized that the mere existence of pending criminal cases against an individual does not suffice to justify preventive measures under Section 107 of the CrPC. There must be an imminent threat to public peace for such preventive actions to be warranted.

The court further clarified that activities such as participating in demonstrations, holding banners, or shouting slogans are forms of expression protected under Article 19. These actions, in themselves, do not constitute violations of the reasonable restrictions outlined in the Constitution. The judgment highlighted that the liberty of an individual cannot be curtailed merely based on their involvement in peaceful demonstrations or expressions of dissent.

This ruling reinforces the judiciary's role in upholding constitutional freedoms and ensures that preventive measures by authorities do not infringe upon the fundamental rights of citizens without substantial justification. It serves as a reminder that the right to protest and express dissent is a cornerstone of a democratic society, and any restrictions on these rights must be carefully scrutinized to prevent arbitrary curtailment of individual liberties.

In conclusion, the Kerala High Court's decision affirms that peaceful participation in demonstrations and the expression of dissent through slogans or banners are protected under the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Authorities must exercise caution and ensure that any preventive measures taken to maintain public order do not unjustly infringe upon these rights. The judgment underscores the importance of balancing the state's responsibility to maintain public peace with the need to protect individual freedoms in a democratic society.