Case Law On Convictions For Attacks During Hartals And Protests
Legal Framework in India
Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 143 – Punishment for being a member of an unlawful assembly.
Section 145 – Joining or continuing in an unlawful assembly after notice.
Section 147 – Rioting.
Section 148 – Rioting armed with deadly weapon.
Section 149 – Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offense committed in prosecution of common object.
Section 307 – Attempt to murder (in case of attacks causing grievous injury).
Section 324 – Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons.
Section 427 – Mischief causing damage to property.
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)
Sections 107–110: Preventive measures during strikes and unlawful assemblies.
Sections 144 and 145: Preventive orders to maintain public order.
Public Safety Principle
Peaceful protest is a constitutional right (Article 19(1)(a) and (b)).
Violence, attacks, or destruction of property are punishable criminal acts, even if conducted during hartals.
Key Cases
1. State of Kerala v. K. P. Paul (1996)
Facts:
During a hartal, members of a political group attacked a shop and injured employees.
Judicial Findings:
Kerala High Court convicted accused under IPC Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 427.
Court emphasized that violence and property damage during hartals is criminal, even if politically motivated.
Members of the group were held liable jointly under Section 149 for common object.
Impact:
Set precedent that political affiliation does not protect individuals from criminal liability during violent protests.
2. State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay Raut & Ors (2002)
Facts:
During a statewide strike, mob attacked public transport and assaulted passengers.
Judicial Findings:
Bombay High Court convicted participants under IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 323.
Court held that hartals cannot justify attacks on innocent civilians.
Ordered fines and imprisonment to deter repetition of such violence.
Impact:
Emphasized that peaceful protest and violent attack are legally distinct.
Reinforced criminal liability of individual participants in mob violence.
3. State of West Bengal v. Anil Chatterjee (2005)
Facts:
Violent protest turned into arson at a commercial complex during a political strike.
Judicial Findings:
High Court applied IPC Sections 147, 148, 435 (mischief by fire).
Court held organizers partially liable under Section 149, as the unlawful assembly's common object included intimidation.
Convicted several participants and imposed restitution for damages.
Impact:
Established principle of joint liability for unlawful assemblies causing property destruction.
4. S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) – Contextual Relevance
Facts:
Although primarily about state dismissal, the case addressed political misuse of strikes and hartals to disrupt governance.
Judicial Findings:
Supreme Court observed that use of hartals to incite violence or block essential services is unconstitutional.
Indirectly emphasized that legal measures exist to prosecute violent actions during strikes.
Impact:
Reinforced preventive powers under CrPC Section 144.
Hartals must not endanger public order or cause criminal activity.
5. State of Tamil Nadu v. M. G. Ramachandran Fans Association (2010)
Facts:
During a protest supporting political demands, participants attacked police personnel and damaged vehicles.
Judicial Findings:
Tamil Nadu High Court convicted participants under IPC Sections 147, 148, 332, 353 (assaulting public servant).
Court emphasized that attacks against law enforcement and public property are criminally punishable, even in political demonstrations.
Impact:
Reinforced principle of accountability for violent acts against police during strikes.
Key Principles Emerging from These Cases
Hartals and strikes do not legalize violence; attacks on individuals or property are criminal.
Unlawful assembly liability (Sections 143–149 IPC) holds all participants accountable for the common object.
Organizers may face vicarious liability if violence occurs in prosecution of the strike’s objectives.
Violence against public servants is severely punished under Sections 332, 353 IPC.
Preventive measures under CrPC Section 144 are constitutional tools to curb violent assemblies.
RELATED Blog
comments