Protest Is Hallmark Of Democracy: Madras High Court Quashes Case Against Farmer For Hunger Strike

The Madras High Court recently quashed criminal cases lodged against an agriculturist for holding a hunger strike against the continuous lodging of criminal cases against their Farmers' Association leader. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 326] Justice M Nirmal Kumar observed that there was no material to show that the persons had caused any inconvenience to the general public. The court also highlighted that raising slogans and showing protest will not be an offence, as showing protest itself is a hallmark of democracy, protected under the Constitution. “A mere reading of the allegations in the final report shows that the allegations are general in nature and no specific allegations are made against the petitioner to attract the said provisions. Raising slogans and showing protest itself would not amount to commission of offence. Showing Protest is the Hallmark of Democracy, which is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution of India,” the court said. The court was hearing a petition filed by Krishnamoorthy seeking to quash the criminal proceedings pending against him before the Judicial Magistrate, Palladam, Tiruppur District. As per the prosecution, Krishnamoorthy assembled along with other persons and conducted a hunger strike, demanding the withdrawal of criminal cases registered against one M Easan, an advocate and founder of the Tamil Nadu Farmers Protection Association. The prosecution alleged that the protest was conducted without obtaining permission from the authorities and thus caused inconvenience to the public and obstruction of the free movement of the general public. Based on a complaint by the Village Administrative Officer, an FIR was registered by the Avinashipalayam Police Station for offences under Sections 189(2), 226, and 193(1) of the BNS. A final report was filed, which was taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner argued that his association was actively involved in public causes affecting farmers and functioned through peaceful democratic means, including representations, public awareness campaigns, lawful agitations, and legal proceedings. It was submitted that, aggrieved by the repeated registration of criminal cases against the association founder, the members decided to conduct a peaceful hunger strike and protest in order to bring the issue to the attention of the Government, public authorities, and the general public. The petitioner thus argued that they were expressing collective democratic dissent and not an attempt to commit any unlawful act. The petitioner also submitted that the protest and hunger strike were conducted on private property and not on any public road. It was argued that the petitioner was merely exercising his constitutional right guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution. It was also submitted that on the date of the protest, there was nothing to show that on the date of occurrence, there was no prohibitory order in force. The State, however, submitted that the parties had conducted the strike and protest without permission and caused inconvenience to the public and obstruction to the free movement of the general public. The state also argued that the chargesheet had already been filed and requested the court not quash the case. Looking into the materials, the court noted that no public had lodged a complaint and no public had been affected by the protest. The court thus held that the petitioner and others had only raised slogans and protested to withdraw the criminal cases registered against the association's founder. The court also noted that there were no prohibitory orders on the date and there was no disobedience by the petitioner. The court held that the petitioner had only followed their rights protected by the Constitution. The court thus held that continuation of trial in this case was wholly unsustainable and constituted a clear abuse of the process of law, warranting interference. Thus, the court allowed the plea and quashed the criminal case against the petitioner. Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. V. Raghavachari Senior Counsel for Mr. S. Ganesh Babu Counsel for Respondents: Mr. A. Amarnath Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) Case Title: Krishnamoorthy v State and Another Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 326 Case No: CRL OP No 15309 of 2026Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment

Protest Is Hallmark Of Democracy: Madras High Court Quashes Case Against Farmer For Hunger Strike

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

Protest Is Hallmark Of Democracy: Madras High Court Quashes Case Against Farmer For Hunger Strike

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