2016 Rohith Vemula Protest: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against 15 Students, Says Assembly Below 250 Persons Didn't Need Permission

The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed criminal proceedings against 15 students who were booked for allegedly assembling without permission and obstructing traffic in Bengaluru during a 2016 a protest over the suicide of student Rohith Vemula, who had ended his life over alleged caste discrimination.

The single judge bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh, while allowing the quashing plea, held that the prosecution had failed to establish the existence of an 'unlawful' assembly as contemplated under the Indian Penal Code.

“...considering the Licensing and Controlling of Assemblies and Public Processions (Bangalore City) Order 2009, if it is assembly of more than 250 persons, it requires permission. In the charge-sheet, nowhere it is stated that which provision they have violated, except invoking Sections 283 and 341 and other offences of unlawful assembly...

The permission is required in Bangalore City if the congregation of more than 250 persons assembling at one place with an intention to conduct the meeting, protest, to hear a public speech including political, social, religious and cultural meetings to which the public have got free access. The allegation made against these petitioners is that they obstructed the free movement of traffic and hence, they were arrested. The charge-sheet is filed only against these petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 15. It is stated in the charge sheet that brought more than 100 to 150 students, but they are not made as accused. In view of the aforesaid proviso, and having regard to the fact that this Court has already considered a similar set of facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C" the court said.

Referring to the Licensing and Controlling of Assemblies and Public Processions (Bangalore City) Order, 2009, the petitioners had submitted that permission is required in Bangalore City only if there is a congregation of more than 250 persons. Such assembly should also be happening at one place with an intention to conduct a meeting or protest, or to hear a public speech etc. with free public access, the petitioners contended further.

On the same aspect, the petitioners pointed out that the charge sheet itself stated only the presence of 100 to 150 students in the gathering, much below the mandate of 250 persons. Therefore, the assembly could not be termed an 'unlawful' assembly, the counsel for the petitioners submitted.

The petitioners also argued that the 'mere presence' in an assembly without a common object does not make a person liable under Section 149 IPC. The petitioners said that the only allegation against them is that they were proceeding to Raj Bhavan to give a representation. 

To recap, the petitioners had approached the Court seeking to quash the charge sheet dated 20.07.2016 by the Cubbon Park Police for offences under Sections 283, 341, 143, and 144 r/w Section 149 of the IPC. Reliance was primarily placed on Charan Singh and Others v. State of UP (2005) wherein it was observed that if the common object of an unlawful assembly is not proved, the accused persons cannot be convicted under Section 149 IPC.

According to the State, the petitioners assembled in front of Capital Hotel towards Raj Bhavan Road to register their protest over the death of Rohith Vemula. According to the police, the protest was without prior permission. The gathering of 100-150 students raising slogans, and displaying flags allegedly caused obstruction to the movement of traffic, the state told the court.

The petitioners, on the other hand, contended that invoking the charged offences against them was unsustainable. It was argued that the remaining offences [ other than Section 149] punishable under Sections 283 and 341 of IPC Carried minimal punishment and fine.

The students emphasised further that mere presence in an unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable unless there was a common object and he was actuated by that common object, as set out in Section 141 of IPC.

The FIR was quashed.