Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Telugu Actor-Producer Mohan Babu Over 2019 Protest For Student Fee Reimbursement

The Supreme Court today (July 31) quashed the FIR registered against Telugu actor and film producer Mohan Manchu Babu and his son Vishnu Vardhan Babu, in connection with a protest rally held in 2019 over the issue of student fee reimbursements in Andhra Pradesh.

"The appellants were exercising their right to freedom of speech and expression and to assemble peacefully. Therefore, no purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution.", the court said.

The bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and KV Viswanathan allowed Mohan Babu and his son's plea, setting aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision refusing to quash the criminal proceedings against them.

The case arose from a protest held on March 22, 2019, led by Mohan Babu, his sons Manchu Vishnu and Manchu Manoj, and two other senior staff members of Sri Vidyaniketan Educational Institutions, to demand release of pending student fee reimbursement funds by raising slogans vociferously against the-then Ruling Government of Andhra Pradesh for not granting Students' Fee Reimbursement to their educational institutions.

A complaint was lodged by the then Model Code of Conduct Officer since the Elections were scheduled in the State, that the protest involved a rally and dharna that allegedly obstructed traffic for over four hours. Basing this, the police registered FIR under Sections 290, 341, 171-F read with 34 of the IPC, and Section 34 of the Police Act, 1861.

Refusing to quash the FIR, the High Court said the allegations labelled against the Appellants required trial and that the case did not meet the exceptional conditions under the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) for exercising inherent powers.

Following this, the Appellants approached the Supreme Court.

Noting that none of the offences alleged against the appellants herein is made out, the judgment authored by Justice Nagarathna observed:

"A reading of the FIR and the charge-sheet neither discloses any act committed or illegal commission that caused common injury, danger, annoyance to the public or any section of the public or interference with their public rights, nor do they disclose any voluntary obstruction to a person that prevents them from proceeding in any direction that they have a right to proceed in. Further they do not disclose any material to suggest that there was any undue influence at elections, impersonation at elections or any act committed with the intention to interfere with the free exercise of electoral rights. Further they do not suggest that any act was committed on a road or in an open place within the limits of a town that caused inconvenience, annoyance or posed a risk of danger or inquiry or damage to the public, and do not disclose any of the eight specified actions under Section 34 of the Police Act, 1861. Therefore, 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 of the road in a manner that led to the offences alleged."

The appeal was allowed, and the pending criminal proceedings against the Appellants stand quashed.

Cause Title: MANCHU MOHAN BABU VERSUS THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR. (& connected matter)

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 757

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pai Amit, AOR Mr. Abhiyudaya Vats, Adv. Mr. Tathagata Dutta, Adv. Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR Mr. Samarth Krishan Luthra, Adv.