The Supreme Court additionally halted the High Court’s ruling, which had fined Siddaramaiah, along with Congress General Secretary and Karnataka in-charge Randeep Singh Surjewala, State Ministers M B Patil and Ramalinga Reddy, and had instructed them to present themselves before a special court on March 6th.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(19 Feb,2024) the Supreme Court intervened to pause the criminal proceedings against Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and several key Congress figures. This legal pause stems from a protest march orchestrated in 2022, which aimed at demanding the resignation of then Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Minister KS Eshwarappa. The protest not only spotlighted the political tensions within Karnataka but also raised questions about the right to peaceful protest and its limits under Indian law.
ALSO READ: Karnataka CM Siddaramaiah Appeals to Supreme Court to Quash Traffic Blocking FIR
The apex court’s bench, comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra, responded to petitions that contested the Karnataka High Court’s decision to continue the criminal case against Siddaramaiah and others. The High Court had earlier mandated Siddaramaiah to present himself before the Special Court on February 26, 2024, and had dismissed their petitions, imposing a fine of Rs 10,000 on each petitioner.
The protest in question was not just any demonstration but a significant political statement, as articulated by Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Siddaramaiah. He emphasized,
“it was a ‘political protest’ and the criminal case was a violation of the right to protest under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.”
This argument brings to the forefront the essential democratic right to protest, suggesting that a peaceful political protest, devoid of any criminal intent, should not be stifled by penal provisions.
Justice Mishra, however, posed critical questions about the nature of such protests, highlighting the potential for disruption.
“Your argument is that if a politician does it, it should be allowed, but if a normal citizen does, it should not be? How can it be quashed just because it is done by a politician?”
This exchange underscores the delicate balance between the right to protest and maintaining public order.
The case against the Congress leaders was initiated following their march to then Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai’s residence in Bengaluru, a move that was seen as laying siege to demand Eshwarappa’s resignation. This action was not only a political maneuver but also a response to the tragic suicide of contractor Santosh Patil, who accused Eshwarappa of corruption.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, also representing the Congress leaders, distinguished between “law and order” and “public order” allegations, arguing that the former is not a valid ground for restricting the right to protest under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. This distinction is crucial in understanding the legal nuances of the case and the broader implications for public demonstrations in India.
“Otherwise it would be very dangerous. Every public protest will be illegal,”
–Sibal said.
The Supreme Court’s decision to stay the proceedings and the operation of the Karnataka High Court’s order reflects a pivotal moment in the ongoing discourse on political protests and the legal boundaries within which they operate. It also highlights the judiciary’s role in interpreting the Constitution in a manner that balances individual rights with public welfare.
The case, is now poised at a critical juncture, with the Supreme Court’s notice to the respondents returnable within six weeks. This legal battle not only involves the fate of prominent political figures but also sets a precedent for the future of political protests and the interpretation of constitutional rights in India.
CASE TITLE:
SIDDARAMAIAH Versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR., SLP(Crl) No. 2292/2024.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
