In a significant ruling, the Telangana High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings against members of the Telangana Vidyarthi Vedika (TVV) who were charged for raising slogans demanding the release of Prof. GN Saibaba and Varavara Rao. These charges were initially brought against the students under allegations of unlawful assembly, public nuisance, wrongful restraint, and obstruction of public functions during a protest held in 2019.
Case Background
The students participated in a protest demanding the release of Prof. GN Saibaba and Varavara Rao, both prominent figures who were detained under accusations of Maoist links. The police had registered a case against the students, citing multiple offenses including obstruction of public functions and causing a public nuisance.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
Justice K. Sujana, presiding over the case, noted that the right to protest is a fundamental right protected under Article 19(1)(b) of the Indian Constitution. The court emphasized that the allegations against the students did not justify the charges of using criminal force or causing a public nuisance. The defense argued that the protest was peaceful and did not involve any criminal activities, asserting that the charges were baseless and filed under pressure to suppress their fundamental rights.
The High Court concurred with the defense, concluding that the charges did not hold under the legal scrutiny and quashed the proceedings against the TVV members. This decision underscores the importance of protecting the constitutional rights of individuals to peacefully protest and express dissent【98†source】【99†source】【100†source】.
Implications
This ruling is a crucial affirmation of the right to peaceful assembly and protest in India. It serves as a reminder to authorities about the necessity of upholding constitutional freedoms and ensuring that legal actions do not suppress legitimate expressions of dissent. The court’s decision highlights the judiciary’s role in safeguarding democratic principles and preventing misuse of legal provisions to stifle public voice.