In a significant development, the Supreme Court has intervened, issuing a stay on proceedings against Karnataka chief minister Siddaramaiah and 35 other Congress leaders. This legal respite comes in the wake of their scheduled appearance before a Karnataka judge to face trial related to an April 2022 protest in Bengaluru. The protest aimed to secure the resignation of then minister KS Eshwarappa, who was implicated in a contractor’s suicide note.
Table of Contents
Emphasis on Preserving Political Protests
The Supreme Court, emphasizing the importance of preserving the essence of political protests, remarked that stifling such expressions could be a consequence if the charges were solely based on the allegations presented in the charge sheet. The matter is now adjourned for further consideration after a six-week period.
In the interim, the bench has ordered a stay on the proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No. 54/2022,” the Supreme Court stated in its order, providing temporary relief to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and 35 Congress leaders, including state ministers Ramalinga Reddy, MB Patil, and Congress leader Randeep Singh Surjewala.
Supreme Court: Temporary Relief Granted
The legal saga unfolded after the Karnataka High Court rejected their plea to annul the criminal case, directing them to face trial in the trial court. The presiding judge of the special court for MP/MLAs, tasked with adjudicating the case, had summoned the accused to appear in February 2024. They face charges under Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) related to unlawful assembly, alongside Section 103 of the Karnataka Police Act concerning breach of law and order, as registered at High Grounds police station, Bengaluru City.
Legal representation for the petitioners included senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi for the chief minister, and Kapil Sibal, Sidharth Luthra, and Devadutt Kamat for the other accused. Their appearance underscores the gravity of the legal battle and the prominence of the issues at stake
Asserting Constitutional Rights
Advocate Rajesh Inamdar’s petition highlighted a critical omission in the high court’s verdict, emphasizing that the rejection lacked a clear assessment of whether the petitioners had violated Section 141 (unlawful assembly). “On this ground alone, the impugned judgment and order deserve to be set aside,” the petition asserted.
This assertion was further underscored by Singhvi, who emphasized that the chargesheet filed by the police on February 12, 2023, failed to establish any of the essential elements required to substantiate the offence under Section 141 IPC. He elaborated that the petitioners, while chanting slogans demanding the resignation of then minister KS Eshwarappa in the BJP-led government, were exercising their democratic right to protest peacefully.
Singhvi lamented the arrest of the petitioners when they attempted to march from the Congress office to the chief minister’s residence, emphasizing that such peaceful political demonstrations should not result in the application of Section 141. Referring to Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which enshrines the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, Singhvi emphasized the importance of safeguarding these liberties in the face of arbitrary arrests and legal inconvenience.
Singhvi asserted that the charge of “unlawful assembly” under Section 141 is applicable only when a gathering of five or more individuals attempts to “overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force” the state or central government, Parliament or state legislature, or any public servant exercising lawful power. He highlighted the crucial condition that such an assembly must share a “common object” in engaging in violence.
Citing precedents where high courts have quashed cases against politicians for lack of evidence of unlawful assembly during political protests, Singhvi argued for a nuanced interpretation. However, the bench initially expressed skepticism, questioning whether politicians could claim protection for protests without seeking prior permission. The justices highlighted the need for orderly conduct and suggested that assembling in large numbers without permission for protests is untenable.
Argument for Protection of Democratic Rights
In response, Kapil Sibal countered that political demonstration falls under Article 19(1)(a), and any restrictions imposed by the state must adhere to the grounds specified in Article 19(2), particularly related to public order. This exchange underscored the delicate balance between the right to protest and the regulatory role of the state. The restriction cannot be based on law and order but public order, as per my constitutional right under Article 19(1)(a). Here, the restriction hinges on the law and order situation. Our actions, inherently, cannot constitute an offense. Otherwise, it sets a perilous precedent where every form of protest becomes hazardous,” argued the petitioners passionately.
Overlooking Critical Aspects
Furthermore, they contended that there were no allegations suggesting that the protest incited violence or employed criminal force, posing an imminent threat to the public, members of the ruling dispensation, or any public servant. This critical aspect, they emphasized, was overlooked by the high court, leading to an unjust dismissal of their plea.
Read About: Hijab Row : BJP Condemned Siddaramaiah on the Controversy
