Madras HC Quashes FIR Against 14 Persons Who Raised Pro-Palestine Slogans at Gudalur, Finds No Unlawful Assembly
The Madras High Court quashed an FIR and trial-court proceedings against 14 petitioners booked for raising pro-Palestine slogans, holding the allegations disclosed no offence under BNS.
Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, sitting singly at the High Court of Judicature at Madras, on 31 August 2026 allowed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) filed by 14 residents of Gudalur, Nilgiris District. The court quashed Crime No. 269 of 2025 registered by the Sub Inspector of Police, Gudalur Police Station, and the consequential proceedings in STC No. 201 of 2026 before the Judicial Magistrate, Gudalur. The petitioners had been charged under Sections 189(2) and 126(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for allegedly gathering and raising slogans in support of the Palestinian people on the evening of 5 October 2025. The court found that the allegations, even if accepted entirely, did not attract either provision.
The Gathering on 5 October 2025
According to the prosecution's case, at around 6.00 p.m. on 5 October 2025, the 14 petitioners assembled and raised slogans in support of the Palestinian people and against what they described as genocide being perpetrated against them. The Gudalur Police registered an FIR in Crime No. 269 of 2025 for offences under Section 189(2) of BNS, which deals with unlawful assembly, and Section 126(2) of BNS. The police completed their investigation and filed a final report, which the Judicial Magistrate at Gudalur took cognisance of, registering the matter as STC No. 201 of 2026.
The 14 petitioners are residents of Gudalur and nearby areas in the Nilgiris. They approached the High Court through counsel Mr. I. Abdul Basith, arguing that the FIR was registered without any basis and that they had not committed any offence as alleged. The State was represented by Mr. R. Ganesh Kumar, counsel for the Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side), who informed the court that investigation had been completed and the final report had been filed.
The Legal Question: Does Slogan-Raising Constitute an Unlawful Assembly?
The central question was whether the petitioners' conduct — gathering and raising slogans in solidarity with a foreign civilian population — could be brought within the definition of an unlawful assembly under BNS so as to attract Section 189(2), and whether the ingredients of Section 126(2) were present in the charge sheet.
The definition of unlawful assembly requires that an assembly of five or more persons have a common object falling within specified categories: to overawe by criminal force the Central or State Government, Parliament, a State Legislature, or a public servant; to resist execution of any law or legal process; to commit mischief, criminal trespass, or another offence; to use criminal force to take or obtain possession of property or to deprive any person of a right of way or incorporeal right; or to compel any person by criminal force to do or omit to do something.
The court set out these categories in full and examined whether the petitioners' assembly fell within any of them.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Ilanthiraiyan relied on the well-known categories set out by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others, reported in 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335, for the exercise of the quashing power. The court restated the principle that when the entire materials collected by the prosecution, taken as a whole, would not constitute any offence, directing the parties to undergo the ordeal of trial is a futile exercise and infringes their rights.
Applying that principle to the facts, the court found that the petitioners had not shown any criminal force to commit mischief, crime, or any offence. They had not attempted by criminal force to take possession of any property or any incorporeal right in the possession of others. In the court's assessment, the assembly did not fit into any of the categories that would make it unlawful.
On Section 126(2) of BNS, the court found that there were no ingredients in the charge sheet to attract that provision either. The court did not record any finding in the petitioners' favour on the merits of their political expression as such; the decision rested entirely on the absence of the statutory ingredients for the two offences charged.
The court also observed, drawing on the Bhajan Lal categories, that a criminal proceeding should not be allowed to continue where the allegations in the FIR, even taken at face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
Outcome
CRL OP No. 24299 of 2026 was allowed. STC No. 201 of 2026 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Gudalur, was quashed as against the petitioners. The two connected miscellaneous petitions, CRL MP Nos. 16185 and 16187 of 2026, were closed. Copies of the order were directed to the Judicial Magistrate, Gudalur; the Sub Inspector of Police, Gudalur Police Station, Nilgiris District; and the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.