Rajasthan High Court Quashes FIR Against Farmers Protesting Against Jawai Dam Distribution Issue, Says Water Is A Matter Of Survival For Them

Quashing FIRs against over 50 farmers stated to be "peacefully protesting" on Jawai Dam water distribution issue, Rajasthan High Court said that an individual taking to the streets to protest to safeguard their rights when their interest were affected did not imply that they had committed offences alleged under IPC and National Highways Act.

The Court was hearing a batch of writ petitions seeking quashing of FIRs filed against the petitioners under the Sections 117(Abetting commission of offence by the public or by more than ten persons), 143(punishment for unlawful assembly), 283(Danger or obstruction in public way or line of navigation) and 353 (Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty) of IPC and Section 8B (Punishment for mischief by injury to national highway) of National Highways Act.

Observing that Section 8B of National Highways Act was not applicable against the petitioners Justice Farjand Ali in his order said:

"In a silent protest, it cannot be presumed that any person has caused harm to public property or to any individual. It is well understood that water is a basic necessity, and for farmers, it is a matter of survival and livelihood. Their wrath and resentment, therefore, is natural. If they come forward to request that the authorities should hold discussions in a setting where they feel comfortable particularly when the outcome directly affects their lives and if they express their dissent against a decision taken by the authorities in a democratic manner, there is nothing unlawful in that. Furthermore, 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. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 8B are not fulfilled". 

The court further said that India is a democratic nation that "exists for its people", and "preventing its citizens from holding a peaceful protest through force or coercion" could not be justified.

“If simply opposing an officer's decision results in the registration of a criminal case, it would reflect a mindset reminiscent of British colonial rule but surely not the spirit of a free, democratic nation governed by the rule of law.”

It thereafter said that the "alleged protest stemmed from genuine resentment and was an expression of democratic dissent" and in a democracy, of the people, by the people, and for the people, peaceful protest is a constitutional right.

"Simply because an individual took to the streets to protest in order to safeguard their rights when their interests were affected does not imply that they have committed offences under Sections 117, 143, 283, and 353 of the IPC, or Section 8B of the NH Act," the court added.

A meeting for distribution of water from Jawai Bandh had to be conducted at the HQ of the Divisional Commissioner. Traditionally, considering farmers' convenience, the meeting used to take place at the Dam inspection. The change in venue led to serious disappointment among the farmers that eventually led to the authorities proceeding with water distribution without farmers' feedback.

To peacefully protest against the decisions of the authorities, approximately 700-800 farmers assembled at NH-62. No violent incident took place, neither was there mention of any damage, disorder or chaos in the FIR. However, an FIR were filed against the protesting farmers.

After hearing the contentions, the Court dealt with all the alleged offences.

It was held that Section 117, IPC that was regarding abetment of commission of an offence was not applicable since it was nowhere mentioned that people were called by any of the accused, rather all had assembled on their own accord, not for committing any wrongdoing but to voice their rights.

In relation to Section 141 and 143 that was regarding unlawful assembly, the Court held that not every assembly could be deemed to be unlawful in a democratic country like India. In the present case, the petitioners had assembled at the spot and were protesting, but this alone did not automatically establish presence of common unlawful object.

“If a person takes to the streets for the sake of their life or happiness, which is integrally linked to their livelihood, it cannot be construed as a piece of evidence of a common object. Each individual faces their own hardship…People who are wholly and mainly dependent on agricultural produce may naturally become distressed at the sudden realization that they would not receive water. However, the mere expression of anguish in such circumstances cannot be taken to mean that they share a common objective or have formed an unlawful assembly.”

The Court further held that ingredients of Section 283 that criminalized danger or obstruction in public way or line of navigation were not fulfilled because no danger was presented to the public by the petitioners who were conducting a silent protest.

It was also opined to be obvious that if people gathered somewhere to assert their rights, the way will be blocked automatically. However, this did not mean the petitioners caused any harm to anyone.

Accordingly allowing the plea, the court quashed the 2022 FIR, and the order was directed to be made applicable to all such individuals who did not come before the Court as well. "Since the entire FIR stands quashed, no individual shall be prosecuted in connection with this case," the court added.

Case Title: Ajaypal Singh v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petitions

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 200

For Petitioners: Mr. Nishant Bora, Mr. Yuvraj Singh

For Respondents: Mr. N.S. Chandawat

Click Here To Read/Download Order