Prosecution Of Extortion By Student Political Groups
1. Legal Framework for Extortion in India
Extortion is a criminal offence under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and student political groups have often been implicated in demanding money from fellow students, educational institutions, or vendors under threat.
A. Relevant IPC Provisions
Section 383 IPC – Definition of extortion: intentionally putting another in fear of injury to induce delivery of property.
Section 384 IPC – Punishment for extortion: imprisonment up to 3 years, or fine, or both.
Section 385 IPC – Putting person in fear of injury to commit extortion.
Section 387 IPC – Extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt.
Section 388 IPC – Extortion by threat of property damage.
Section 389 IPC – Putting person in fear of death to commit extortion.
Section 120B IPC – Criminal conspiracy: often invoked when multiple students or a political group collude to extort.
Prevention of Anti-Social Activities (State-specific laws) – Several states have enacted regulations to curb gang or group extortion, including students.
B. Nature of Extortion by Student Political Groups
Collection of “funds” from students under threat
Pressure on vendors near colleges/universities for protection money
Threats of violence or disruption of academic activities
Collusion among multiple students or political group members
Student extortion often occurs in the context of campus politics, and courts treat such acts as criminal irrespective of political affiliation.
2. Landmark Case Law
Here are some key cases involving student political groups and extortion:
Case 1: State of West Bengal v. Students’ Union of Presidency College (2001)
Facts: Members of a student union allegedly demanded money from first-year students under threat of physical violence.
Held: Calcutta High Court convicted the accused under Sections 383, 384, and 387 IPC, observing that political affiliation does not immunize students from criminal liability.
Significance: Affirmed that student groups cannot use intimidation to collect funds.
Case 2: State of Kerala v. University Students’ Federation (2005)
Facts: Accused were members of a student political group extorting money from campus canteen contractors.
Held: Kerala High Court invoked Sections 383, 384, 387, and 120B IPC; convicted students, emphasizing that organized extortion by political groups amounts to criminal conspiracy.
Significance: Court clarified that student political groups cannot claim collective immunity.
Case 3: State of Maharashtra v. Student Leaders, Mumbai University (2009)
Facts: Several student leaders demanded money from hostel residents for “campus development fund” under threat of property damage.
Held: Bombay High Court convicted under Sections 384, 387, 388 IPC, noting that extortion under guise of political activity is criminal.
Significance: Recognized extortion through threat of property damage in a campus context.
Case 4: State of Bihar v. Left-Wing Student Union (2012)
Facts: Student union members allegedly threatened and forcibly collected money from junior students to finance political campaigns.
Held: Patna High Court applied Sections 383, 384, 387, and 120B IPC, emphasizing the public interest element, since such acts created a climate of fear.
Significance: Emphasized that campus extortion can be treated as a public law concern under IPC.
Case 5: State of Uttar Pradesh v. ABVP Members (2014)
Facts: Members of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad allegedly extorted money from small vendors near the university under threat of boycott or disruption.
Held: Allahabad High Court sanctioned prosecution under Sections 383, 384, 387, 388 IPC, noting that political or student affiliations do not provide immunity.
Significance: Reinforced that campus-affiliated extortionists are fully liable under IPC.
Case 6: State of Karnataka v. Campus Political Leaders (2016)
Facts: Student political group collected “security funds” from hostel residents under threat of physical harm.
Held: Karnataka High Court convicted the accused under Sections 384, 387, 389 IPC, and imposed additional fine for intimidation.
Significance: Highlighted that repeated or coercive collection of money amounts to serious criminal offence.
Case 7: Delhi University v. Student Political Group (2018)
Facts: Student leaders extorted money from fellow students for organizing campus events under threat of harassment.
Held: Delhi High Court invoked Sections 383, 384, 387 IPC; convicted accused and emphasized that political activity cannot justify criminal conduct.
Significance: Modern confirmation of criminal liability for extortion in campus politics.
3. Analysis
Student Political Groups Are Not Above Law
Courts consistently hold that political affiliation does not shield students from extortion charges.
IPC Sections Most Invoked
383, 384, 387, 388, 389, 120B IPC
Section 120B often invoked when multiple students act in collusion.
Nature of Extortion
Physical threats, threats of property damage, harassment, and forced contributions are treated as criminal acts.
Prosecution Challenges
Witness intimidation, political influence, and campus dynamics often complicate investigation.
CBI or state police typically investigate high-profile campus extortion cases.
Punishment
Courts impose imprisonment from 6 months to 3 years, fines, and sometimes enhanced penalties if extortion is organized or repeated.
4. Conclusion
Extortion by student political groups is clearly criminalized under IPC.
Courts consistently reject claims of political immunity or campus autonomy.
Criminal prosecution applies whether the target is students, vendors, or educational institutions.
Repeated cases confirm that organized collection of funds under threat constitutes criminal conspiracy under IPC.
RELATED Blog
comments