Joseph Maliakan
In a great relief to political, social and human rights activists in the country who have been alarmed at the shrinking democratic space for protests specialy in the National Capital Delhi, the Supreme Court on 31st July 2025 quashed a First Information Report ( FIR ) registered against Telungu actor and film producer Mohan Manchu Babu and his son Vardhan Babu. The FIR was filed against them in connection with a protest rally held in 2019 on the issue of non-payment of student fee reimbursements in Andhra Pradesh.
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and K. V. Viswanathan quashed FIR setting aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s refusal to quash the criminal proceedings against Mohan Manchu Babu and his son.
” The appllents were exercising their Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression and to Assemble Peacefully. Therefore , no purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution , ” the court order said.
Only on 1st July 2025 several political parties and progressive and democratic organisations got together and held a joint dharna organised by the Delhi Committee of CPI ( ML ) at Jantar Mantar against shrinking space for PROTEST in the capital. The gathering was addressed , among others , by CPM ( ML ) Delhi spokesperson Comrade Mrigank, Nadita Narain of Democratic Teachers Front ( DTF ) and N.D. Pancholi veteran leader of People’s Union for Civil Liberties ( PUCL ).
There was a time when all protest programmes , dharnas, rallies and public meetings in Delhi were organised at the sprawling Boat Club lawns where there was ample breathing space for the aggrieved protesters as well as for the police force and the reporters , including the present writer covering events. One of the famous sit ins at the India Gate lawns this reporter covered was the farmers agitation led by Kisan leader Mahinder Singh Tikait. While covering the event I developed a special bond with the farmers leader and that came in handy while covering the recent farmers’ agitation against the infamous farmers ‘ reform’ Acts.
The shifting of the protest site from Boat Club to the Jantar Mantar took place some time in the late 80s may be 1988 or 1989 , around that time there was a massive dharna by the Anganwadi workers demanding survival wages which this reporter covered for the Indian Express.
Even though Jantar Mantar is the officially designated protest site nobody is free to protest at the site at will. The Delhi Police , which is responsible for law and order in the capital is insisting that a minimum 10 days notice is a must to hold any dharna, rally or meeting at the Jantar Mantar. And through out the New Delhi district in which most of the Union goverment offices and the state goverment guest houses and offices are located prohibitory orders are in force on a permanent basis and permission for protest events are given reluctantly after inordinate delay.
Gradually , peaceful gathering in industrial areas and other workplaces in Delhi are also being brought under highly restrictive regimes and permission for protest programmes are outrightly denied. Jantar Mantar itself has been converted in to barricaded highly monitored zone.
Petitions and memorandums addressed to people in power can no more be submitted directly by the protesters to the concerned authorities, the Prime Minister, Home Minister, Chief Minister, Commissioner of Police or Municipal Commissioner. The petitions have to be submitted to the security officer on the spot who will forward them to the concerned authority. The meeting demanded that Section 144 be lifted from the New Delhi District and people should be free to hold protest programmes with a simple notice to the police without waiting for permissions.
The case against Mohan Babu and his sons arose from a protest held on 22nd March 2019 led by Mohan Babu demanding release of pending student fee reimbursement funds . The protesters raised slogans against the then government for not granting students’ fee reimbursement to Sri Vidyaniketan Educational Institutions of which Mohan Babu is the Chairman.
The complaint was registered by then Model Code of Conduct Officer ( elections were due to be held at that time ) alleging that the protest involved a rally and dharna which obstructed traffic for four hours . Based on the complaint the police registered FIR under Sections 290, 341, 171-F read with 34 of the IPC and Section 34 of the Police Act , 1861.
Observing that none of the offences charged against the appellants is made out, the judgement authored by Justice Nagarathna said: ” A reading of the FIR and the chargesheet neither discloses any act committed or illegal commission that caused common injury , danger, annoyance to the public or interference with their public rights , nor do they disclose any voluntary obstruction to a person that prevents them from proceeding in any direction that they have a right to proceed in .
” Further they do not disclose material to suggest that there was any undue influence at elections , impersonation at elections or any act committed with the intention to interfere with the free exercise of electoral rights.
” Further they do not suggest that any act was committed on a road or in an open place within the limits of a town that caused inconvenience , annoyance or paused a risk of danger or injury or damage to the public , and do not disclose any of the eight specified actions under Section 34 of the Police Act.,1861.
” Therefore , even if the case of the respondent -State is accepted at its face value , it cannot be concluded that the appellants , while conducting the rally and dharna , engaged in any form of obstruction of the road in a manner that led to the offences alleged .” Justice Nagrathna concluded!
