Madras HC Quashes BNS Charges Against Farmers' Association Office-Bearer for Peaceful Hunger Strike

The Madras High Court has quashed proceedings against a Tamil Nadu Farmers Protection Association office-bearer charged under the BNS for joining a hunger strike demanding withdrawal of criminal cases against a farm leader, holding that the allegations were general and the protest a constitutionally protected act.

Justice M. Nirmal Kumar, sitting singly at the Madras High Court, quashed criminal proceedings in S.T.C.No.486 of 2026 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Palladam, Tiruppur District, against Krishnamoorthy, an agriculturist and office-bearer of the Tamil Nadu Farmers Protection Association. The proceedings arose from a hunger strike held on 18 January 2026 near the Kovilpalayam area in Tiruppur District. The Avinashipalayam Police Station had registered FIR Crime No.19 of 2026 and subsequently filed a charge sheet invoking Sections 189(2), 226, and 193(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The court found no specific allegations against the petitioner, no evidence of a promulgated prohibitory order communicated to the public, and no member of the public who either complained or was affected by the protest.

The Hunger Strike and the FIR

On 18 January 2026, Krishnamoorthy and others assembled near the Kovilpalayam area and conducted a hunger strike and protest. The stated object was to demand the withdrawal of criminal cases registered against one Mr. M. Easan, an advocate described as the founder of the Tamil Nadu Farmers Protection Association, and others associated with him.

The protest came to the notice of the authorities through a complaint lodged by the Village Administrative Officer of Alagumalai Village, Palladam Taluk. The complaint alleged that the participants assembled without permission from authorities and caused inconvenience and obstruction to the free movement of the general public. On the basis of this complaint, the Avinashipalayam Police Station registered Crime No.19 of 2026 for offences under Sections 189(2), 226, and 193(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

After completing the investigation and citing five witnesses, the police filed a final report, which was taken on file as S.T.C.No.486 of 2026 before the Judicial Magistrate, Palladam. Krishnamoorthy, facing trial before the Magistrate, approached the Madras High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for quashing of those proceedings.

The Legal Contest

Senior Counsel Mr. V. Raghavachari, appearing for the petitioner, advanced three distinct lines of argument.

First, the protest and hunger strike were conducted on private property, not on any public road, Government office, public institution, or prohibited area. Without a public location as the setting, the prosecution's premise of obstruction to public movement was legally untenable.

Second, the petitioner neither organised nor instigated any unlawful activity. He participated in the exercise of constitutional rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India — the freedoms of speech and expression and of peaceful assembly.

Third, there was no material on record to show that any prohibitory order was in force on 18 January 2026, let alone that such an order was communicated to the public in the prescribed manner. Without a valid and communicated prohibitory order, the question of its disobedience did not arise.

The petitioner's counsel also relied on this Court's earlier ruling in Madhan Mohan v. The State and another in Crl.O.P.Nos.23129 & 23127 of 2019, where proceedings on similar grounds had been quashed, and on Jeevanandham and others v. State represented by Inspector of Police and another, reported in (2018) 2 LW Crl. 606, where the Madras High Court had issued authoritative guidelines on the registration and investigation of protest-related cases.

The State's counsel countered that the investigation was complete and a charge sheet had been filed. The petitioner, according to the prosecution, had participated without permission, formed an unlawful assembly, and caused public disturbance despite police warnings. The counsel argued that continuing the protest after police warnings demonstrated deliberate defiance.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Nirmal Kumar examined the final report and the rival submissions and began by accepting as an admitted fact that the petitioner and others had conducted a protest, characterising it as an exercise of a fundamental right. The court's analysis then turned on whether the prosecution had demonstrated anything beyond that bare fact.

On the question of public impact, the court observed that no member of the public had lodged any complaint and no member of the public had been shown to have been affected by the protest. The complaint originated exclusively from the Village Administrative Officer. On the question of the charges, a reading of the final report disclosed that the allegations were general in nature and that no specific allegation had been made against the petitioner personally to attract the provisions of Sections 189(2), 226, or 193(1) of the BNS.

The court found the absence of any evidence of a promulgated prohibitory order communicated to the public particularly significant. Without such an order, and without evidence of disobedience by the petitioner, the prosecution's case on unlawful assembly and obstruction could not be sustained. Equally, the prosecution had not shown that any trouble had actually occurred as a consequence of the protest.

Turning to the Jeevanandham precedent, the court recalled that the Madras High Court had there clearly held that the right to protest was to be safeguarded and not termed a criminal offence. It found that the Avinashipalayam Police had failed to follow the guidelines laid down in that judgment. The court noted that in several similar cases it had quashed the proceedings against accused persons on the same grounds.

Justice Nirmal Kumar concluded with a statement that echoed the petitioner's constitutional argument: “Showing Protest is the Hallmark of Democracy, which is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution of India.” Raising slogans and showing protest, without more, did not amount to the commission of an offence. In those circumstances, allowing the trial to continue for offences under Sections 189(2), 226, and 193(1) of the BNS would be wholly unsustainable and a clear abuse of the process of law.

Outcome

By order dated 18 June 2026, the High Court allowed CRL.O.P.No.15309 of 2026 and quashed the proceedings in S.T.C.No.486 of 2026 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Palladam, Tiruppur District, as against Krishnamoorthy. The connected miscellaneous petition, Crl.M.P.No.9980 of 2026, was closed.