Madras HC Quashes BNS Charges Against 15 Persons Who Gathered for Vijayadasami and RSS Centenary in Ambur

Justice M. Nirmal Kumar quashed trial court proceedings against 15 petitioners charged under BNS for assembling without permission at a Vijayadasami and RSS centenary event in Ambur, finding no independent witnesses and no evidence of any prohibitory order.

The Madras High Court on 28 April 2026 quashed criminal proceedings pending before the Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Ambur, against fifteen residents of Tirupattur District who had been charged under Sections 189(3), 223, 126(2) and 293 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Justice M. Nirmal Kumar, sitting singly, found that the prosecution had cited no independent eye-witnesses, produced no material showing a promulgated prohibitory order, and could not demonstrate that any member of the public was actually affected by the gathering. The court held that continuing the trial on these facts would constitute an abuse of the process of law.

The Gathering on 2 October 2025 and the FIR

On 2 October 2025, at around 11.00 a.m., the fifteen petitioners assembled at a public place in Ambur, Tirupattur District, carrying an RSS flag. The occasion was the Vijayadasami festival and the 100th year anniversary of their association. No prior permission had been obtained from the concerned authorities.

M. Dinakaran, the Village Administrative Officer of Kennadikuppam Village (acting as Ambur Town in-charge), was the de facto complainant. He alleged that the gathering caused hindrance to public transport and disturbance to the public, and that the petitioners refused to disperse when asked. On his complaint, the Ambur Town Police Station registered Crime No. 229 of 2025. The final report was filed on 9 October 2025 — nine days after the incident — and STC No. 282 of 2026 was taken up before the trial court.

The four witnesses cited in the charge sheet were the Village Administrative Officer (LW1), two Village Assistants (LW2 and LW3), and the Investigating Officer (LW4). No member of the public who claimed to have been affected was cited as a witness.

Petitioners' Case: Fundamental Right, No Prohibitory Order, Hurried Investigation

Counsel for the petitioners, D. Vijaya Babu, pressed three main points before the court. First, the gathering was a celebration — Vijayadasami and the centenary of the association — and could not be treated as an unlawful act. The right to assemble and to express displeasure, he argued, is a fundamental right and the hallmark of democracy.

Second, there was nothing on record to show that any prohibitory order was in force on 2 October 2025, or that any such order had been communicated to the public in the prescribed manner. Without a promulgated and communicated prohibitory order, the charge of disobedience under the BNS provisions could not stand.

Third, the final report was filed within nine days of the complaint, which counsel characterised as a hurried investigation. None of the cited witnesses had stated that they were personally affected by the assembly.

Counsel relied on two precedents. In Madhan Mohan v. The State and Another, Crl.O.P. Nos. 23129 & 23127 of 2019, this court had quashed proceedings on similar grounds. In Jeevanandham and Others v. State rep. by Inspector of Police and Another, reported in (2018) 2 LW Crl. 606, the court had laid down guidelines on how cases of this nature should be registered and investigated, and had held that the right to protest must be safeguarded and not treated as a criminal offence.

State's Response

The Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent maintained that the petitioners had gathered without prior permission, formed an unlawful assembly, restrained others, and caused public disturbance. The timely intervention of the Ambur Town Police, the prosecution submitted, had averted further trouble. On completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed in accordance with law.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Nirmal Kumar began by accepting that the petitioners had gathered together, but observed that this was their fundamental right. He noted that no member of the public had lodged a complaint and no member of the public had been shown to have been affected by the assembly.

The court found that the allegations in the final report were general in nature. No specific allegation was made against any individual petitioner that would attract the charged provisions. The court stated plainly that unlawful assembly by itself does not amount to the commission of an offence.

On the question of witnesses, the court observed that the occurrence took place in a public place, in public view, yet the prosecution had examined no independent witness. The four cited witnesses were described by the court as “only passers-by.” This absence, the court held, cast serious doubt on the veracity of the complaint.

The court returned to the prohibitory order point. There was no material before it to show that any prohibitory order had been promulgated and communicated to the public, or that the petitioners had disobeyed any such order. Equally, the prosecution had not shown that any actual trouble resulted from the assembly.

Justice Nirmal Kumar held that the Ambur Town Police had failed to follow the guidelines issued by this court in Jeevanandham (2018) 2 LW Crl. 606. That decision had required that cases of this nature be registered and investigated in a particular manner before protest activity is treated as criminal conduct. The court noted that it had quashed investigations in several similar cases on the same grounds.

Taken together, the court concluded that continuing the trial for offences under Sections 189(3), 223, 126(2) and 293 of the BNS, 2023 was “wholly unsustainable and constitutes a clear abuse of the process of law.”

Order

CRL OP No. 10849 of 2026 was allowed. The proceedings in STC No. 282 of 2026 on the file of the Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Ambur, Tirupattur District, were quashed as against all fifteen petitioners. The connected miscellaneous petitions, Crl.M.P. Nos. 7679 and 7686 of 2026, were closed. No costs were awarded.