Read Time: 06 minutes

Justice Nirmal Kumar of Madras High Court has quashed First information Reports filed against person who were protesting against one Sundravalli, a CPI (M) party worker, who defamed Tamil Saint Thirugnanasamanthar and Lord Shiva. According to the judgment FIRs were filed against them on the ground that the protests were being held despite the prohibitory order under Section 144 Cr.P.C. being in force owing to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The protests were held on 3rd August 2020 at about 11 AM at Ambur in Tamil Nadu, the FIR further alleged that the protestors were not wearing masks. The counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners were completely unaware about the FIR being registered against them.  He further submitted that the petitioners are law abiding citizens and are not involved in any offence as alleged by the police. It was further argued that implicating the petitioners under the above offences is void ab initio.

The counsel for the petitioners further argued that the petitioners had not indulged in any activity that amounted to spreading COVID-19 to others. He further submitted that the petitioners raised slogans on the edge of the road margin and they are protected under Article 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b) of the Constitution. It was argued that there was nothing to show that on the date of occurrence, there were any prohibitory order in force and as to whether such orders was communicated in the prescribed manner.

The additional public prosecutor argued that the Government had passed prohibitory orders under Section 144 Cr.P.C., due to the COVID-19 pandemic. He further submitted that despite warnings of the Police, the petitioners unnecessarily roamed in and around in Ambur, without any reason which caused the spread of COVID-19.

The court on hearing the parties noted that an FIR be registered only if a person indulges in an act to believe that the disease can be spread to others. It further noted that there is no material on record to show that the petitioners were not wearing mask while protesting. The court held that  “thus, the offences are not made out, because the petitioners did not indulge in any activity that may spread disease to others”

The court held that “admittedly in this case, the occurrence had taken place in the public place and view, no public or independent witness examined by the prosecution, which causes serious doubt on the veracity of the complaint.” The court further noted that there is no material to show that there was any promulgation of prohibitory orders which were communicated to the public. There were also not material to show that there was any disobedience by the petitioners. The court noted that “further, in consequence to the protest, the prosecution failed to show whether any trouble injuries occurred.”

As a result the court quashed the FIR filed against the protestors.

Case title: Chidambaram Vs State of Tamil Nadu