On September 25, 2025, the Kerala High Court denied anticipatory bail to four individuals claiming to be members of trade unions. They were accused of assaulting a postmaster and coercing him to shut down a public office that remained operational during a nationwide strike called by trade unions. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas emphasized that compelling a public office to close under threat is a serious offense that cannot be tolerated. Granting anticipatory bail to those who used force to close a public office would undermine the rule of law and could encourage similar misconduct in the future.
Case Background
The incident occurred when the accused allegedly obstructed the postmaster from performing his official duties, abused and threatened him to close the post office for keeping it open on a day designated for the strike. The first accused reportedly slapped the postmaster on the cheek and threatened to kill him. The charges against the accused include unlawful assembly, rioting, wrongful restraint, assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of his duty, and criminal intimidation under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Legal Implications
The Court's decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding the rule of law and protecting public servants from unlawful interference in the discharge of their duties. It also highlights the legal boundaries of protest actions, emphasizing that while the right to protest is constitutionally protected, it does not extend to unlawful acts that disrupt public services or harm individuals. This ruling serves as a reminder that actions during strikes or protests must be conducted within the framework of the law, ensuring that the rights of all individuals are respected and upheld.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court's denial of anticipatory bail reflects a firm stance against unlawful actions during protests and strikes. By holding individuals accountable for their conduct, the Court reinforces the importance of maintaining public order and safeguarding the rights of public servants. This decision contributes to the ongoing discourse on balancing the right to protest with the need to uphold law and order in society.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.