Madras High Court Criticizes Police For "Suppressing Dissent", Suo Moto Prosecuting Peaceful Protestors

The Madras High Court recently criticised the Tamil Nadu police for trying to suppress dissent by registering criminal cases against individuals who were peacefully protesting against issues that affected public health and social welfare. The court thus quashed criminal proceedings against individuals who had participated in protests against the functioning of a TASMAC outlet in a populated area. "The FIR was registered suo motu by the police, not with the genuine purpose of maintaining public order, but apparently to suppress dissent and protect the continued operation of the liquor outlet, which is alleged to be a significant source of revenue," the judge said, while quashing the proceedings. Justice P Velmurugan also remarked that if criminal cases were registered against every citizen who participates in peaceful protests, it would amount to criminalisation of democratic expression. The court thus added that the case showed how the criminal justice system was being wrongly used against people who were working for the welfare of the community. “If the police were to register criminal cases against every individual who participates in such peaceful protests, it would lead to the unjust criminalization of democratic expression. In fact, if such a principle were to be applied consistently, hundreds of women across the State who have taken part in similar demonstrations would also be liable for prosecution. This case clearly shows how the criminal justice system is being wrongly used against people who acted not for themselves, but for the welfare of the community,” the court said. The court also observed that peaceful protest in connection with matters which affected public health and social welfare was a constitutionally protected right and that citizens were entitled to express their views. The court added that citizens had a right to demand accountability from the government, provided the protests were peaceful and not violent. The court was dealing with petitions filed by some persons to quash the proceedings in a case registered by the Sethiyathope Police Station (Cuddalore District) for alleged offences under Sections 143 and 188 of IPC. The suo motu FIR was registered by the police against the persons, who were members of an organisation “Makkal Adhikaram,” for their alleged involvement in a protest near a TASMAC outlet and raising slogans demanding its closure. The police argued that the protest was held without prior permission and caused obstruction to vehicular traffic. The petitioners submitted that the protest was peaceful and was intended to bring attention to the grievances of local residents. It was submitted that the functioning of the TASMAC outlet in the thickly populated area was causing distress to the people living in the locality especially women and children. The petitioners also informed the court that the FIR was not based on any individual's complaint and that there was no report of public nuisance, violence, damage, or specific disobedience of any legally binding order. The court agreed with the petitioners and noted that they were raising their voice against the establishment of a TASMAC liquor outlet. The court added that the FIR was registered by the police not for genuinely maintaining public order, but to suppress dissent and protect the continued operation of the liquor outlet, which was a source of revenue. The court remarked that when the public, especially women from local communities, were raising legitimate concerns about the harmful impact of liquor outlets, it could not be treated as a criminal act. The court also noted that though the residents had repeatedly given representations, their voices remained unheard. Thus, noting that continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law, the court quashed the proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate Court and allowed the court. Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. A. Suresh Sakthi Murugan Counsel for Respondents: Mr. S. Vinoth Kumar Case Title: Muruganandam and Another v. State Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 202 Case No: Crl.O.P.No.14103 of 2025Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment

Madras High Court Criticizes Police For "Suppressing Dissent", Suo Moto Prosecuting Peaceful Protestors

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

Madras High Court Criticizes Police For "Suppressing Dissent", Suo Moto Prosecuting Peaceful Protestors

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers