Peaceful Protest Integral To Democracy, the Calcutta High Court has held, quashing criminal proceedings against six School Service Commission job aspirants booked over a 2021 demonstration.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has quashed Bidhannagar North Police Station Case No. 169 of 2021 and all consequential proceedings, including G.R. Case No. 901 of 2021 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar, against six School Service Commission (SSC) job aspirants booked for protesting over alleged irregularities in recruitment during the COVID-19 pandemic [Trina Halder and Others v. The State of West Bengal and Others].
Justice Anuj Singh, sitting singly, allowed the writ petition (W.P.A. No. 25798 of 2023) by a judgment delivered on October 9, 2026, after hearing it on September 28, 2026. The Court examined only whether the FIR, taken at face value, disclosed the ingredients of the offences invoked. The allegations in the FIR were not tested at any trial and the Court expressed no view on what actually happened on the day, the accused being presumed innocent.
The case
The petitioners said they were aggrieved by the manner of recruitment adopted by the School Service Commission and had gathered to voice their grievances before the State’s Education Minister, against hunger, unemployment and what they called illegal recruitment. The FIR, lodged by a sub-inspector, alleges that on August 5, 2021 candidates of the State Level Selection Test assembled near Mayukh Bhawan in Salt Lake, heading towards Bikash Bhawan to demonstrate by raising slogans.
The police alleged that this violated COVID protocols and an order under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that the candidates did not disperse when asked, obstructed public passage and restrained officials from discharging their duties. Thirteen persons, including the six petitioners, were arrested.
Sections 143, 188, 341, 269 and 270 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 were invoked. The petitioners argued that they were exercising their right to assemble peaceably and to speak under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b), and that the FIR disclosed no offence. The State opposed the petition and argued that it was not maintainable.
What the Court said
Applying the principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court read the FIR as a whole and went offence by offence. On unlawful assembly under Sections 141 and 143, it held that the FIR did not disclose a common object of the kind the law requires, and recorded the right to peaceful dissent in these terms:
Thus, a demonstration does not become an offence merely because it was unwelcome to those in authority.
The Court noted that the right to dissent, criticise and peacefully protest against the Government in a legitimate and lawful manner is an integral and essential part of democracy under Articles 19(1) and 21, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra and a Madras High Court ruling. It also cited an earlier Calcutta High Court observation that any large assembly of demonstrators would not per se be illegal or unconstitutional.
Offence by offence
Section 188 IPC: The FIR did not place the Section 144 order on record or describe how the petitioners’ conduct caused or tended to cause obstruction or danger. Citing Re: Ramlila Maidan Incident, the Court said such an order must set out the material facts and be used only in grave circumstances.
Section 341 IPC: The FIR merely said the group tried to obstruct public passage and named no person who was prevented from proceeding, in what manner or for how long.
Sections 269 and 270 IPC: No specific act likely to spread infection was alleged, nor anything from which malignity could be inferred, and the FIR did not say that the petitioners were infected or had reason to believe so.
Section 51, Disaster Management Act: The FIR did not identify which COVID protocol was violated, how or by whom, nor any obstruction of an officer or refusal to comply with a direction under the Act.
The directions
Holding that a bare reading of the FIR did not disclose the ingredients of any of the offences and that no prima facie case was made out, the Court said:
It is an unavoidable inference that the Petitioners are being punished for the protest, making it a vexatious and frivolous proceeding.
The Court held that the case fell within categories (1), (3) and (7) of Bhajan Lal, quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings, directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the concerned criminal court and the Officer-in-Charge of Bidhannagar North Police Station, and made no order as to costs.
Why the judgment matters
The judgment applies the settled test for quashing at the FIR stage: the Court does not weigh the truth of the allegations, but asks who is alleged to have done what, and whether that act satisfies each ingredient of the offence charged. Omnibus references to violating an order or a protocol, without identifying the order, the person obstructed or the specific act, do not meet that test.
It also reiterates that the police have a statutory duty to investigate cognizable offences, and that quashing is warranted only where no offence is disclosed on the face of the FIR. The Court’s observations are confined to the FIR as drafted and do not express any view on the recruitment dispute that prompted the protest.
Case Title: Trina Halder and Others v. The State of West Bengal and Others [W.P.A. No. 25798 of 2023]
Bench: Justice Anuj Singh, Calcutta High Court
Date of Judgment: October 9, 2026
Appearances: Arka Pratim Chowdhury, Puja Rajbhor and Swattik Batabyal, Advocates, for the petitioners; Goutam Misra, Advocate, for the State