Merely Protesting Or Shouting Slogans Doesn't Violate Reasonable Restrictions Under Article 19; Liberty Cannot Be Curtailed Casually: Kerala HC

Justice V G Arun stated that the liberty of a person cannot be curtailed casually by referring to crimes registered for holding public demonstrations.

Court said, “Mere participation in demonstrations, holding of banners or shouting slogans, cannot be perceived as activities in violation of the reasonable restrictions mentioned in Article 19.”

The petitioner challenged the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, which was issued based on a police report that the petitioner constantly engaged in illegal activities likely to cause a breach of peace and disturb public tranquillity. One crime was registered against her for holding a procession to commemorate the death anniversary of a lady who was associated with a Maoist group. The second crime was registered against her for organizing a demonstration by shouting slogans- In the land of Babari, Justice is only Masjid. And the third crime was registered against her for holding a protest against an NIA raid.

The petitioner submitted that crimes were registered against her solely for expressing her opinions through demonstrations and dissent, which is a fundamental right.

On the other hand, the Public Prosecutor submitted that three crimes were registered against the petitioner for holding processions and disrupting traffic, which shows that she is a constant threat to peace and tranquillity.

The Court stated that Article 19 of the Constitution guarantees every citizen freedom of speech and expression, the right to assemble peaceably without arms and to form associations or unions, subject to reasonable restrictions.

The Court stated that threat apprehension to breach of peace and public tranquillity must be imminent. In the facts of the case, the Court stated that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate issued the show cause notice without forming an independent opinion as to whether the activities of the petitioner posed a threat to peace and tranquillity in the locality.

Court said, “Moreover, mere mentioning of the crimes pending against a person will not satisfy the requirement of giving reasons and the apprehended breach of peace must be imminent. The conduct or wrongful acts, which are projected as the reason for issuing the order must have occurred recently and must be relatable to the apprehension of likelihood of breach of peace.”

The Court stated that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had issued the show cause notice by merely relying upon the police report. Relying upon the decisions in Madhu Limaye v Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr & Others (1970) and Santhosh MV & Others v State of Kerala & Others (2024), the Court emphasized that a reasoned order must be issued, demonstrating how the opinion was formed that the individual in question was likely to cause an imminent breach of peace for taking prevention action.

It said, “the impugned order does not even indicate the factors that had prompted the Magistrate to form an opinion that, unless prevented, activities of the petitioner will result in breach of peace and disturb public tranquillity.”

Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was quashed.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates Rizwana AA, Aqib Soahil P S

Counsel for Respondents: Senior Public Prosecutor Pushpalatha M K

Case Title: Sharmina S v Sub Divisional Magistrate

Case No: CRL.MC NO. 10742 OF 2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 152

Click here to Read/Download Order