It would be extremely vital to note that the Allahabad High Court in a remarkable, robust, rational and recent judgment titled Annu Tandon and three others vs State Through Railway Protection Force in Criminal Appeal No. 638 of 2021 and cited in 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 407 that was pronounced most recently on September 1, 2022 has unequivocally underscored that in democracy under our Constitution, people certainly have the right to protest against the Government policies/action/inaction, provided the protest does not lead to the commission of an offence by the protesters. We thus see that the Allahabad High Court modified the sentence awarded to Ex-MP Annu Tandon and others in connection with a ‘Rail Roko Protest’ Case. We also see that the Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Mr Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that except for detaining the train for 15 minutes, there was no damage to private and public property by the protesters and by and large, it was a peaceful and symbolic protest. The Court found that the imprisonment of two years awarded by the Special Judge, MP/MLA/Additional Sessions Judge to Annu Tandon as unwarranted and, therefore, the impugned judgment and order was modified to the extent that the appellants were sentenced with a fine only.
At the outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh sets the ball rolling by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The present appeal under Section 374(2) read with Section 389 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellants against the judgement and order dated 18.3.2021 passed by the Special Judge, MP/MLA/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.19 in Session Case No.578 of 2020, State Vs. Smt. Annu Tandon and others, arising out of Case Crime No.243 of 2017, under Section 174(a) of the Railways Act, 1989, Police Station RPF Post, Unnao, whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants under Section 174 (a) of the Railways Act with simple imprisonment for two years and further under Sections 357 and 359 Cr.P.C. has imposed fine of Rs.25,000/- to each appellant to be deposited with the Railway administration and default of payment of fine, one month additional simple imprisonment.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench then envisages in para 2 that, “The facts, in brief, are that a complaint was filed by the RPF, PostUnnao stating that the Station Master, Northern Railways, Unnao on 12.6.2017 at around 11.42 AM gave information to the RPF/GRP, Unnao that Train No.18191 UP was stopped soon before it was about to reach Platform No.2 by some protesters of the Congress Party having flags and banners in their hands. On the said information, Incharge Inspector, Srinivas Mishra along with Constables Durgesh Kumar Yadav, Dheeraj Kumar Singh and Antesh Kumar Tewari reached to the over bridge, which was on the eastern side of the Unnao Railway Station. The RPF team found that 150-200 people having Congress Party flags and banners in their hands standing under the over bridge. At that time, Train No.18191 UP was coming to Platform No.2. These protesters seeing the train coming, came on the railway track of Platform No.2. The driver of the train finding the crowd standing on the railway track, stopped the train near the over bridge before Platform No.2 at around 11.38 AM. As soon as the train was stopped, some protesters climbed on the engine of the train and raised slogans. GRP/RPF team could, however, persuade them to come down from the engine of the train, and the crowd was also persuaded to leave the railway track. The track was cleared at around 11.50 AM and the train started from the said place at around 11.54 AM to Platform No.2. Altogether, the train was detained by the protesters for 12 minutes.”
As it turned out, the Bench then observes in para 3 that, “Annu Tandon, appellant no.1, Surya Narayan Yadav, District President of Congress Committee, Unnao and Amit Shukla, City President of Congress Committee, Unnao and Ankit Parihar were leading the protest. There was apprehension of law and order getting disturbed if these people were arrested and, therefore, no arrest was made.”
As we see, the Bench then mentions in para 4 that, “Necessary formality was completed at the Post and a complaint was registered against the appellants and 150-200 other unknown persons at Case Crime No.243 of 2017, under Section 174(a) of the Railways Act on 12.6.2017 at 1300 Hours. The said offence was investigated by Sub-Inspector, Srinivas Mishra. Charge sheet was submitted against the appellants under Section 174(a) of the Railways Act. Appellants were summoned. Accused denied the charge and claimed for trial. The prosecution to prove its case produced as many as 22 documentary evidence and examined seven prosecution witnesses.”
Simply put, the Bench then discloses in para 5 that, “P.W.-1, Hyder Mehndi, who was posted as Station Master, Unnao on 12.6.2017, deposed that Train No.18191 UP, Tata-Chapra Express was reaching to Platform No.2. However, some unknown protesters stopped the train before it could reach Platform No.2, as a result thereof, the rail traffic got interrupted. The incident was registered at 11.42 AM, and a copy of the same was given to the GRP/RPF. He proved the said report, which was marked as Ext.Ka-1.”
While elaborating in detail, the Bench then states in para 6 that, “P.W.-2, Dheeraj Kumar Singh, Constable of RPF, deposed that on 12.6.2017 after receiving information regarding stoppage of Train No.18191 UP by the crowd, the police team reached to the place and found that Train No.18191 UP was stopped by 150-200 protesters and some of them, had climbed on the engine of the train. These protesters had Congress Party flags and banners. These protesters were staging the protest under the leadership of Annu Tandon, appellant no.1, Ex Member of Parliament, Surya Narayan Yadav and Amit Shukla etc., and all these persons were demanding that the City Magistrate, Unnao should come there and accept a memorandum from them, which was in the name of the President of India. With a lot of persuasion by the RPF/GPF personnel, protesters vacated the railway track and allowed the train to move on. In this process, the train was detained from 11.38 AM to 11.50 AM. He proved the report prepared at the site on which he had put in his signatures and it was marked as Ext. Ka-2. The said report was made entry in the General Diary at 1300 hours on 12.6.2017, and the case was registered against the appellants and others. The said GD entry was marked as Ext.Ka-3. He also proved the statement recorded by one witness and it was marked as Ext.Ka-4.”
Simply stated, the Bench then specifies in para 7 that, “In the cross-examination, P.W.-2 said that he was carrying mobile phone, but did not take photograph. He did not name the protesters and he did not remember other names than the names of appellants no.1 to 3.”
It is worth stating that the Bench reveals in para 8 that, “P.W.-3, Girish Kumar Verma, who was Guard in the said train, deposed that the train got stopped by the protesters before it could reach the platform. He inquired from the Driver, Ajay Kumar, who said that some protest was going on and the protesters had claimed on the engine of the train. The track would get cleared by the GRP and because of the said protest, the train got held up for 15 minutes from 11.39 AM to 11.54 AM.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 25 that, “The question which arise for consideration, is whether the said incident would come within the definition of Section 174(a) of the Railways Act or not. Section 174(a) of the Railways Act is in respect of obstruction of running of train, which is clear from the heading of the section itself, which reads as under :- “174. Obstructing running of train, etc.—If any railway servant (whether on duty or otherwise) or any other person obstructs or causes to be obstructed or attempts to obstruct any train or other rolling stock upon a railway,—
(a) by squatting or picketing or during any rail roko agitation or bandh; or
(b) by keeping without authority any rolling stock on the railway; or
(c) by tampering with, disconnecting or interfering in any other manner with its hose pipe or tampering with signal gear or otherwise, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both.””
As things stand, the Bench observes in para 26 that, “Thus, if any Railway servant or any other person obstructs any train by squatting or picketing or during Rail Roko Agitation and Bandh etc., the offence under Section 174(a) of the Railways Act would get attracted. Though the trial court has mentioned that it was a ‘Rail Roko’ Agitation. If the said finding is discarded, even then this Court would be required to consider as to whether the offence under Section 174(a) of the Railways Act was committed by the appellants or not. As per provisions of Section 174(a) of the Railways Act, if running of the train is obstructed by squatting or picketing, this would attract the offence under Section 174(a) of the Railways Act.”
To be sure, the Bench then specifies in para 27 that, “The Driver of the train in his evidence very categorically said that he found that large number of people having Congress Party flags and banners standing on the railway track on the date, time and place of the incident, and then he had to slow down the train and had to stop the train near the railway over bridge. Large number of people on railway track staging protest would amount to picketing. It has also come in evidence that as soon as the train got stopped, several persons/Congress workers climbed on the engine of the train. Appellant no.1, Smt. Annu Tandon and other appellants were persuaded to come down from the engine of the train and the railway track was cleared. Thereafter, the train could move and in this process, the train got detained for 15 minutes. Therefore, presence of the appellants at the site is not in dispute. The defence has not led any evidence to support their case that the protest was being staged at nearby ground and field, whereas the prosecution had led cogent and credible evidence to say that the protesters staged the protest on the railway track and stopped the train. It was not a ‘Rail Roko’ Agitation, but the incident would amount to picketing, which obstructed the running of Train No.18191 UP on 12.6.2017 between 11.39 Am to 11.54 AM by the protesters, including the appellants.”
Most forthrightly, the Bench points out in para 28 that, “Even if a peaceful agitation/protest can lead to obstruction of running of any train by squatting or picketing or during any Rail Roko Agitation or bandh, the same would amount to an offence under Section 174(a) of the Railways Act. It is no one’s case that the protest was violent, but the fact remains that the protesters, including the appellants, had stopped the train for 15 minutes by picketing on the railway track and climbed on the engine of the train when it was stopped.”
As a corollary, the Bench then holds in para 29 that, “In view thereof, the offence under Section 174(a) of the Railways Act is clearly established against the appellants and the trial court has not committed any error of law or jurisdiction or evidence in convicting them for offence under Section 174(a) of the Railways Act.”
Most commendably, the Bench then minces no words to state upfront in para 30 that, “In a democratic polity governed by a written Constitution, people have rights of protest against the Government’s policies, perceived atrocities. The right to protest, is also part of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. The citizens of this country have rights for demonstration, agitation and staging protest. However, this right is not an absolute right, and it is subject to reasonable restriction. If law prohibits or restricts exercise of this right in certain ways and manners, then such a law would amount to putting reasonable restriction in exercise of the said right. The citizens of this country are not permitted to violate a law enacted by the legislation while exercising their right of protest, freedom of speech and expression.”
Having said so, the Bench then adding a rider notes in para 31 stating that, “However, so far as the sentence is concerned, this Court finds that awarding the sentence to the appellants for maximum sentence of two years of simple imprisonment in the facts and circumstances of the case, is excessive. In democracy under our Constitution, people have right to protest against Government policies/action/inaction, provided the protest does not lead to commission of an offence by the protesters. Except for detaining the train for 15 minutes, there was no damage to private and public property by the protesters by and large it was a peaceful and symbolic protest.”
Quite ostensibly, the Bench then finds no hesitation in holding unambiguously in para 32 that, “In view thereof, this Court finds that imprisonment of two years is unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the impugned judgement and order dated 18.3.2021 passed by the trial court is modified to the extent that the appellants are sentenced with fine only. The appellants had already deposited the fine of Rs.25,000/- each and, therefore, no further fine is required to be deposited by them. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.”
Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 33 that, “Subject to above modification of the impugned judgement and order, the appeal is allowed in part.”
All said and done, one can easily discern from this notable judgment by the Allahabad High Court that citizens definitely do have a right to protest against government policies/inaction in any particular matter but that has to be done within limits without committing an offence. The Court has made it indubitably clear that the right to protest does not mean that you hold the nation to ransom and block rails and damage property and indulge in unprovoked violence without being held duly accountable for it! It is a very balanced judgment and all those who resort to protest against government must pay heed in their own best interest and so also in the best interest of their own supporters that they pay heed definitely to what the Allahabad High Court has held so very clearly, cogently and convincingly in this leading case!