'Criminalising Dissent': Madras High Court Quashes Case Against Protesters Opposing Liquor Outlet
In a significant judgment reaffirming the constitutional right to peaceful protest, the Madras High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against two individuals who had participated in a demonstration demanding the closure of a TASMAC liquor outlet in Chidambaram. Court observed that prosecuting peaceful protesters amounts to “abuse of the process of law” and poses a threat to democratic expression.
The petitioners, Muruganandam and Manimaran, had approached the court under Section 482 CrPC, seeking to quash the charge sheet pending before the Judicial Magistrate Court-I, Chidambaram. The case dated back to May 5, 2016, when they, as members of the citizens’ group “Makkal Adhikaram,” protested against the operation of a liquor outlet in a thickly populated residential locality. The police had registered a suo motu FIR under Sections 143 and 188 IPC, citing unlawful assembly and obstruction to public movement.
However, Justice P. Velmurugan found the invocation of criminal charges against the protesters unjustified. The protest was peaceful and raised legitimate concerns regarding the presence of a TASMAC outlet in a residential area. No violence or disorder has been alleged. Nor has any public complaint been received, court noted.
The order heavily criticized the police action, describing it as an attempt to suppress dissent and protect the commercial interests of the State-run liquor trade. The FIR was not genuinely intended to preserve law and order, but appears to be a vindictive act aimed at stifling opposition to the liquor outlet, court observed.
Emphasizing that peaceful protests on issues of social welfare—particularly public health concerns arising from liquor consumption—must be protected, court remarked that branding such protests as criminal acts would set a dangerous precedent. If the police were to apply this standard uniformly, hundreds of women across the State who have voiced similar concerns would face prosecution, Justice Velmurugan opined.
Court further highlighted the disconnect between electoral promises and government action on liquor regulation. While political parties, including those in power, have promised reductions in liquor outlets during election campaigns, the ground reality shows only relocations, not closures, the court remarked.
Finding no merit in continuing the case, the high court quashed the proceedings in the case and allowed the petition.
Case Title: Muruganandam and Another vs. State
Download judgment here