The Madras High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a farmer leader who participated in a peaceful hunger strike, holding that merely raising slogans and staging a protest cannot, by itself, amount to a criminal offence.
Justice M. Nirmal Kumar observed that the right to protest is a fundamental constitutional right and that the prosecution had failed to produce material showing public disturbance or violation of any prohibitory order.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by Krishnamoorthy, who challenged the criminal case pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Palladam. According to the prosecution, he and others organised a hunger strike near Kovilpalayam on January 18, 2026, demanding withdrawal of criminal cases registered against farmer leader M. Easan. Police alleged that the protest was held without prior permission, causing inconvenience to the public, and filed a chargesheet under Sections 189(2), 226 and 193(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The petitioner argued that the demonstration took place on private property, not on a public road or prohibited area, and was a peaceful expression of democratic dissent protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution.
Court's Observations
After examining the records, Justice M. Nirmal Kumar noted that no member of the public had lodged a complaint claiming to be affected by the protest. The Court also found no evidence that any prohibitory order was in force or had been communicated to the participants before the demonstration.
Referring to the earlier decision in Jeevanandham v. State, the Court reiterated that peaceful protests deserve constitutional protection and should not automatically attract criminal prosecution.
The bench observed,
"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 further held that the allegations in the final report were general in nature and did not disclose any specific act by the petitioner that would attract the penal provisions invoked by the police. It also noted that the investigating agency had not followed the guidelines laid down in the Jeevanandham judgment while registering and investigating the case.
Decision
Holding that continuation of the criminal trial would amount to an abuse of the legal process, the Madras High Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings pending against Krishnamoorthy in S.T.C. No. 486 of 2026 before the Judicial Magistrate, Palladam.
The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.
Case Details
Case Title: Krishnamoorthy v. State represented by the Inspector of Police & Anr.
Case Number: CRL.O.P. No. 15309 of 2026
Judge: Justice M. Nirmal Kumar
Decision Date: 18 June 2026
