Right to protest: Bombay HC quashes FIR over Chandrapur road agitation, warns of ‘sad day for democracy’
Justice M W Chandwani's order of 29 October says the line between the right to protest and penal prosecution cannot be blurred.
Written with AI assistance from the sources listed below, then checked against them and reviewed by an editor. How our newsroom works
A right to protest ruling by the Bombay High Court came to light on 12 November, when the Press Trust of India reported that the court had quashed an FIR and chargesheet against a Chandrapur resident booked over a village road agitation, saying it would be a “sad day for democracy” if prosecution were used to stifle peaceful protests, as DT Next carried the PTI report.
Right to protest: what the Bombay High Court said
Justice M W Chandwani of the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court passed the order on 29 October, and a copy was made available later, according to Siasat. “The lines between the constitutional right to protest and the unleashing of penal prosecutions cannot be allowed to be blurred,” the court remarked, adding that if this mindset gains traction, “it would be a sad day for democracy.”
Prosecutions must not be launched to stifle agitations that are part of the democratic process, the court said, so long as people do not take the law into their own hands or indulge in violence or damage to public or private property.
Key numbers
- 29 October: the date of the order, per DT Next.
- 12 November: the date PTI reported the ruling, according to Siasat.
- Article 19(1)(b): the constitutional provision on the right to assemble peacefully and without arms.
- One FIR and one chargesheet were quashed.
The Chandrapur road agitation behind the FIR
The court quashed the FIR and chargesheet filed against Nishkarsh Nimgade, a resident of Maharashtra’s Chandrapur district, for taking part in an agitation in January this year against poor road conditions in Nandgaon village, PTI reported. Residents held the protest after a vehicle met with an accident because of the state of the road. They wanted action against the road contractor and errant officials of the Public Works Department.
Police alleged that the agitators had blocked the road by forming an unlawful assembly. Nimgade went to the High Court seeking to have the FIR and chargesheet quashed.
Article 19(1)(b) and reasonable restrictions
The High Court said Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution guarantees the right to assemble peacefully and without arms, according to the report. Reasonable restrictions can always be placed on this fundamental right, the court said, but it must not be diluted or stifled on the basis of vague charges.
Protests and policing in other news
NIS earlier reported on police removing Sonam Wangchuk from a protest site in Leh, citing poll prohibitory orders. See the earlier NIS story on the Ladakh Police action.
What happens next
The order ends the case against Nimgade. The reports did not say whether the Maharashtra government plans to challenge it, and they did not name the police station that registered the FIR. Later developments in the case will be added here.
The order says police charges such as unlawful assembly cannot be used on vague grounds against people who protest peacefully over civic failures like bad roads. It applies to one petitioner, but it is a reference point for others booked after local protests in Maharashtra.