The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against six School Service Commission (SSC) candidates accused of violating COVID-19 restrictions during a protest over alleged recruitment irregularities in 2021. The Court held that merely participating in a demonstration or raising slogans does not constitute an unlawful assembly unless the legal requirements of such an offence are established.
Justice Anuj Singh, in an order dated October 7, found that the allegations in the FIR failed to establish a prima facie case against the petitioners. The Court observed that the criminal proceedings appeared to have been initiated to penalise the candidates for participating in the protest.
The Court emphasised that an assembly cannot be treated as unlawful merely because its activities are opposed by the authorities. It also reiterated that criminal proceedings can be quashed when the allegations in an FIR, read as a whole, do not disclose the commission of an offence.
FIR Failed to Establish Unlawful Assembly
Examining the allegations, Justice Singh held that the FIR did not identify any unlawful common object behind the gathering, an essential requirement for invoking Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Court explained that an assembly can be classified as unlawful only when its common object falls within one of the five categories specified under Section 141.
Even accepting the police allegations in their entirety, the Court found that the conduct attributed to the candidates did not satisfy these statutory conditions.
It held that participation in a protest and the raising of slogans, without an unlawful common object, could not attract liability under Section 143 of the IPC.
No Allegation That Protesters Were Infected With COVID-19
The Court also examined the allegation that the candidates had violated COVID-19 protocols during the demonstration.
It found that the FIR did not indicate any reason for the police to believe that the petitioners were infected with COVID-19 or were carrying any disease.
Justice Singh concluded that the FIR failed to disclose the essential ingredients of the offences invoked against the candidates. The Court considered the proceedings frivolous and vexatious, observing that the allegations suggested the petitioners were being subjected to criminal prosecution for protesting.
Protest Against Alleged Recruitment Irregularities
The case arose from a demonstration organised on September 28, 2021, by candidates dissatisfied with the recruitment process followed by the School Service Commission.
According to the petitioners, they had assembled outside the residence of the West Bengal Education Minister to draw attention to their grievances concerning unemployment, hunger and alleged illegal recruitment.
Police subsequently registered an FIR accusing the protesters of disregarding COVID-19 restrictions, refusing to disperse despite instructions, attempting to obstruct public passage and preventing officials from performing their duties.
The six candidates approached the High Court seeking the quashing of the criminal proceedings.
Petitioners Invoked Constitutional Right to Peaceful Assembly
Advocates Arka Pratim Chowdhury, Puja Rajbhor and Swasttik Batabyal, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the candidates had exercised their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression and peaceful assembly under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b).
They maintained that the demonstration was peaceful and intended to communicate grievances concerning the SSC recruitment process.
The petitioners also contended that the police lacked the necessary authorisation to proceed against them, claiming that no notification or notice had been issued in 2021 empowering the authorities to take such action against peaceful demonstrations.
Opposing the plea, State counsel Goutam Misra argued that the petition was not maintainable and should be dismissed.
High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings
After examining the FIR and the allegations, the High Court concluded that none of the invoked offences had been established even at the preliminary stage.
Justice Singh held that criminal prosecution could not continue where the FIR failed to disclose the basic ingredients of the alleged offences. The Court further observed that allowing such proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of the legal process.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against all six SSC candidates.
