Shreya Gupta
On March 12, 2025, the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court, in Tukaram Parab & anr. v. State, emphasized that any attempt to dilute or stifle the fundamental right of citizens to protest would mark a tragic day for democracy.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Mahesh Sonak stated that the state must refrain from initiating prosecutions merely to suppress democratic movements unless they escalate into violence. In the order dated March 12, the Judges underscored that prosecutions should not be launched to curtail protests that are part of the democratic process unless participants take the law into their own hands or engage in violence or destruction of public or private property. The Court reaffirmed that Article 19(1)(b) of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to assemble peacefully and without arms, and while reasonable restrictions may be imposed, vague allegations without essential legal elements should not serve as a basis for suppressing such rights.
The Bench further cautioned against blurring the lines between the constitutional right to protest and punitive prosecution, warning that the adoption of such a mindset would be detrimental to democracy. The Court made these observations while dismissing an FIR filed against two members of the Revolutionary Goans Party (RGP), namely its president Tukaram Parab and party member Rohan Kallangutkar, who had been charged for leading a protest outside the Valpoi police station on January 6, 2021. The prosecution alleged that the two leaders, along with 300 protestors, raised slogans against the police and called for a blockade of the police station. Additionally, the prosecution claimed that they threatened to destroy government property and cause harm to public servants inside the premises. Consequently, Parab and Kallangutkar were charged under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, including Section 143 (unlawful assembly), Section 145 (continuing in unlawful assembly despite orders to disperse), Section 147 (rioting), Section 341 (wrongful restraint), Section 186 (obstructing a public servant in duty), Section 353 (assault or use of criminal force against a public servant), Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy), and Section 149 (common object liability of unlawful assembly).
However, after reviewing the evidence, FIR, and charge sheet, the Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish the alleged offenses. In particular, regarding the application of Section 149 of the IPC, the judges noted that the presence of an individual in an assembly is not sufficient to invoke liability under this provision—there must be a shared unlawful object. Since the allegations in the FIR and complaint did not substantiate the commission of any offense, the Court concluded that continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the judicial process. Consequently, the bench quashed both the FIR and the charge sheet against the petitioners.
Case Title: Tukaram Parab & anr. v. State
Case Number: Writ Petition (CRL) No. 30 of 2021
Bench: Justices Alok Aradhe and Mahesh Sonak
Click here to access the order
Instagram: Click here.
LinkedIn: Click here.
For Collaboration and Business: info.desikaanoon@gmail.com