Dissent Is the Safety Valve of Democracy, Not a Crime: Rajasthan High Court Quashes FIR Against Farmers for Peaceful Protest

“Expression of anguish for livelihood cannot be criminalised... this isn’t the Raj, this is a Republic” – Rajasthan High Court, in a powerful reaffirmation of the constitutional right to peaceful protest, quashed FIR registered against over 50 farmers who had peacefully protested the administrative relocation of a water distribution meeting for the Jawai Bandh. In a strongly-worded judgment, Justice Farjand Ali condemned the invocation of criminal charges such as unlawful assembly, obstruction, abetment, and assault on public servants, ruling that “raising one’s voice for survival cannot be equated with criminality”.

The protest—held by approximately 700–800 farmers on NH-62 near Sumerpur—was peaceful and non-violent, arising from discontent over the abrupt venue change for a key meeting on water allocation. The FIR was registered under Sections 117, 143, 283, 353 IPC, and Section 8B of the National Highways Act, 1956, but the Court found no evidence of criminal intent, damage, or disruption to public peace.

“Gathering to Safeguard Livelihood Is Not a Crime” – Court Rules No Unlawful Assembly Without Criminal Intent

Justice Ali dissected the very foundation of the prosecution’s case, holding that:

“Not every assembly is unlawful. People who are wholly and mainly dependent on agricultural produce may naturally become distressed... but the mere expression of anguish in such circumstances cannot be taken to mean they share a criminal object.” [Para 6]

He found no evidence to attract Section 143 IPC (unlawful assembly), stating:

“In a democratic country like India, the right to free speech and expression is a fundamental right… if a person takes to the streets for the sake of life or happiness integrally linked to livelihood, it cannot be construed as a common object to commit an offence.” [Para 6]

“No Violence, No Damage, No Crime” – FIR Deemed an Abuse of Law

The FIR made no allegation of damage to property, injury to persons, or use of force, and the SHO’s own factual report dated 21-03-2025 contained no specifics of obstruction, assault, or mischief.

The Court noted:

“The accused were conducting a silent protest… any obstruction was incidental, not intentional… nothing in the record shows use of force or criminal intent.” [Paras 2.3, 7]

Sections 283 IPC (obstruction on public way), 353 IPC (use of force on public servants), and Section 8B of the NH Act (damage to highway) were held to be inapplicable. The protest, held on a national highway, did not cause any “mishap or damage,” and no force was used against the police.

“If a group stands in a public place, some degree of obstruction is inevitable, but that alone does not constitute an offence—especially in the absence of violence or damage.” [Para 8]

“Preventing Peaceful Protest Is a Colonial Mindset” – Constitutional Right Under Article 19(1)(b) Upheld

The Court held the FIR to be not just legally unsustainable but also constitutionally repugnant to the spirit of Article 19(1)(b), which guarantees the right to peaceful assembly:

“Preventing citizens from holding a peaceful protest through force or coercion cannot be justified. If simply opposing an officer’s decision results in the registration of a criminal case, it reflects a mindset reminiscent of British colonial rule but surely not the spirit of a free, democratic nation.” [Para 9]

“Justice Is Not Just for the Informed and Privileged” – Relief Extended to All 53 Protesters

In a particularly humane observation, the Court declared that the quashing of the FIR would apply to all individuals named, even those who could not appear before the Court:

“Justice is not meant solely for those able to access it due to their resources or awareness. It is equally available to those who, due to financial, social, or informational constraints, could not appear before this Court.” [Para 12]

Accordingly, the Court directed the SHO to file a negative final report and bring the criminal proceedings to a close.

“Administrative Decisions Cannot Trump Human Dignity” – Gun License Suspension Also Revoked

The Court also revoked the suspension of a gun license held by the lead petitioner Ajaypal Singh, which had been imposed solely on the basis of the FIR. With the FIR quashed, and no other criminal cases pending, the Court held:

“The order passed against him appears to have been issued without any application of mind… it is, therefore, set aside.” [Paras 16–17]

“Democracy Exists for Its People” – A Judgment Rooted in Constitutional Morality

Citing the landmark judgment in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), the Court found that the FIR fell within several illustrative categories warranting quashing under Section 482 CrPC, including:

• Allegations that don’t disclose a cognizable offence

• FIRs registered to suppress dissent

• Proceedings attended with mala fide intent

“This Court feels that courts are meant to impart justice and, for that purpose alone, they possess all powers needed to do so.” [Para 10]

A Judicial Shield for Democratic Dissent

This ruling from the Rajasthan High Court delivers a robust judicial message: democracy thrives on dissent, not silence. Peaceful protest, especially in defence of livelihood, is not only lawful—it is essential.

The FIR and all related proceedings were thus quashed in their entirety, restoring dignity and constitutional protection to the protesting farmers.

Date of Decision: 21 May 2025