Fundamental Right to Protest Cannot Be Criminalised: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Manchu Mohan Babu & Manchu Vishnu in 2019 Dharna Case

“Even If Allegations Are Taken at Face Value, No Offence Is Made Out Under IPC or Police Act” — SC Holds Peaceful Protest a Constitutionally Protected Act; Quashes Criminal Case Against Manchu Mohan Babu and Son Vishnu Vardhan. Supreme Court of India holding that the mere participation in a peaceful rally during election time, without arms or violence, does not attract criminal liability under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or the Police Act.

Setting aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s refusal to quash the criminal case, a Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, quashing FIR No.102/2019, charge-sheet dated 03.06.2020, and the trial proceedings in C.C. No.1015/2021. The Court declared that “none of the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are made out even if the FIR is accepted at face value”, and ruled that continuing prosecution would be an abuse of process and a violation of fundamental rights.

A Student Rally for Fee Reimbursement Becomes a Criminal Case

The case arose out of a student protest rally held on 22 March 2019, in Tirupati, led by actor-educator Manchu Mohan Babu and his son Manchu Vishnu, Chairman and key office bearer of the Sri Vidyaniketan Educational Institutions. The rally was organised to protest the non-disbursal of student fee reimbursements by the then Andhra Pradesh government.

According to the police, the rally and dharna — which allegedly obstructed traffic and caused inconvenience to the public — were held without prior permission, violating prohibitory orders issued under Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861 during the enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct for the 2019 Lok Sabha elections.

Consequently, FIR No. 102/2019 was registered against the appellants under Sections 290, 341, 171F read with 34 IPC, and Section 34 of the Police Act, followed by a chargesheet and initiation of trial.

The appellants approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court under Section 482 CrPC, seeking quashing of the case, but the High Court dismissed their plea on 2 January 2025, stating that there were “specific allegations” warranting trial. The present appeals before the Supreme Court arose from that judgment.

“Even Assuming Allegations Are True, No Ingredients of Any Offence Are Made Out” — Supreme Court Applies Bhajan Lal Doctrine

Reiterating the classic seven-fold test from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Supreme Court invoked clauses (1), (2), and (3) of paragraph 102 to hold that the allegations on record did not prima facie disclose any offence.

“Even if the case of the respondent-State is accepted at its face value, it cannot be concluded that the appellants, while conducting the rally and dharna, engaged in any form of obstruction... The appellants were exercising their right to freedom of speech and expression and to assemble peacefully.”

The Bench held that no act amounting to public nuisance, wrongful restraint, undue influence during election, or any offence under the Police Act could be inferred from the FIR or the chargesheet.

"Court Should Quash Where Conviction Is Unlikely and Continuation of Trial Is an Abuse of Process" — Supreme Court Criticises High Court’s Refusal

In unequivocal terms, the Court noted that the High Court erred in refusing to quash the proceedings, despite the absence of basic legal ingredients.

“The High Court erred in concluding that there were specific allegations against the appellants… It would have been appropriate for the High Court to have exercised the power available under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of the court’s process.”

The Court further stated: “The criminal process cannot be utilized for any oblique purpose… The court should quash those criminal cases where the chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak.”

In this case, the Bench observed that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution, especially since the protest was peaceful and without arms, falling squarely within the protection of Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution.

"Public Assembly Without Prior Permission Does Not In Itself Amount to Crime If Peaceful": SC Reads Constitution Over Technical Infractions

While acknowledging that Section 30 of the Police Act allows authorities to regulate rallies during election time, the Court held that mere non-compliance with procedural requirements like prior permission cannot, by itself, give rise to criminal liability, unless actual obstruction, danger or nuisance is shown.

“A reading of the FIR and chargesheet neither discloses any act committed or illegal commission that caused common injury, danger, annoyance to the public… nor do they disclose any voluntary obstruction… or undue influence at elections.”

Refusing to criminalise a constitutionally protected act, the Court stressed: “Participation in peaceful protests is protected under Article 19(1)(a) and (b); no offence is made out.”

SC Reinforces Free Speech and Peaceful Protest As Constitutional Bulwarks

This judgment reinforces a vital constitutional message: peaceful protest cannot be throttled through criminal prosecution under the guise of administrative or electoral compliance. In a democracy, peaceful dissent — even if inconvenient — cannot be converted into criminality without material evidence of harm or public danger.

By quashing the FIR and all connected proceedings, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the power under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised “to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice” — particularly when fundamental rights are at stake.

Date of decision:  31 July 2025