The Allahabad High Court recently held that protesters stopping a running train would attract offence under section 174 (a) of Railways Act even if the protests were peaceful [Annu Tandon & Three Others vs State through Railway Protection Force].a.A bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh said that the right to protest, though a fundamental right, is not an absolute one and if a law prohibits or restricts exercise of the right to protest in a certain manner, then such a law would be protected as a reasonable restriction."Even if a peaceful agitation/protest can lead to obstruction of running of any train by squatting or picketing or during any Rail Roko Agitation or bandh, the same would amount to an offence under Section 174(a) of the Railways Act. It is no one’s case that the protest was violent, but the fact remains that the protesters, including the appellants, had stopped the train for 15 minutes by picketing on the railway track and climbed on the engine of the train when it was stopped," the Court said. The judge underscored that the citizens are not permitted to violate a law enacted by the legislature while exercising their right to protest."In a democratic polity governed by a written Constitution, people have rights of protest against the Government’s policies, perceived atrocities. The right to protest, is also part of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. The citizens of this country have rights for demonstration, agitation and staging protest. However, this right is not an absolute right, and it is subject to reasonable restriction," the bench observed..The Court was hearing an appeal filed by ex-Member of Parliament of Congress party, Annu Tandon and a few other Congress workers, who were booked for staging a "Rail Roko" protest in Unnao on June 12, 2017. The former parliamentarian was accused of climbing upon a running train along with 150 to 200 other Congress workers. As a result of this, the long distance train was forced to halt for 15 minutes.In his defense, the MP submitted that she didn't instigate any person to gather near the railway track and stop the train or even to climb over it. She pointed out that it was a mere symbolic protest to hand over a memorandum to the President through city magistrate regarding the atrocities the BJP government was meting out to the farmers in Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and other States.It was argued that the act of climbing upon the railway and stopping it will not attract section 174(a) of the act which penalises stopping of moving train by resorting to squatting, picketing etc..The judge considered the testimony of the train's motorman, who specifically stated that the appellant along with other workers was staging a protest on the railway tracks and had even climbed upon the train and stopped it for over 15 minutes.Further considering the provision of the Railways Act, the judge said, "The law clarifies that if any Railway servant or any other person obstructs any train by squatting or picketing or during Rail Roko Agitation and Bandh etc., the offence under Section 174(a) of the Railways Act would get attracted.".The bench, therefore, upheld the conviction of the appellants by a lower court. It, however, did modified the sentence by doing away with the two years simple imprisonment imposed by the lower court."In democracy under our Constitution, people have right to protest against Government policies, action or inaction, provided the protest does not lead to commission of an offence by the protesters. Except for detaining the train for 15 minutes, there was no damage to private and public property by the protesters by and large it was a peaceful and symbolic protest. In view thereof, this Court finds that imprisonment of 2 years is unwarranted."The Court, therefore, set aside the sentence of imprisonment while maintaining the fine amount of ₹25,000 imposed on the appellants..Advocates Rohit Tripathi and Syed Zulfiqar Husain Naqvi appeared for the appellants.Advocates Suniti Sachan and Shiv Shukla represented the State..[Read Judgment]
The Allahabad High Court recently held that protesters stopping a running train would attract offence under section 174 (a) of Railways Act even if the protests were peaceful [Annu Tandon & Three Others vs State through Railway Protection Force].a.A bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh said that the right to protest, though a fundamental right, is not an absolute one and if a law prohibits or restricts exercise of the right to protest in a certain manner, then such a law would be protected as a reasonable restriction."Even if a peaceful agitation/protest can lead to obstruction of running of any train by squatting or picketing or during any Rail Roko Agitation or bandh, the same would amount to an offence under Section 174(a) of the Railways Act. It is no one’s case that the protest was violent, but the fact remains that the protesters, including the appellants, had stopped the train for 15 minutes by picketing on the railway track and climbed on the engine of the train when it was stopped," the Court said. The judge underscored that the citizens are not permitted to violate a law enacted by the legislature while exercising their right to protest."In a democratic polity governed by a written Constitution, people have rights of protest against the Government’s policies, perceived atrocities. The right to protest, is also part of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. The citizens of this country have rights for demonstration, agitation and staging protest. However, this right is not an absolute right, and it is subject to reasonable restriction," the bench observed..The Court was hearing an appeal filed by ex-Member of Parliament of Congress party, Annu Tandon and a few other Congress workers, who were booked for staging a "Rail Roko" protest in Unnao on June 12, 2017. The former parliamentarian was accused of climbing upon a running train along with 150 to 200 other Congress workers. As a result of this, the long distance train was forced to halt for 15 minutes.In his defense, the MP submitted that she didn't instigate any person to gather near the railway track and stop the train or even to climb over it. She pointed out that it was a mere symbolic protest to hand over a memorandum to the President through city magistrate regarding the atrocities the BJP government was meting out to the farmers in Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and other States.It was argued that the act of climbing upon the railway and stopping it will not attract section 174(a) of the act which penalises stopping of moving train by resorting to squatting, picketing etc..The judge considered the testimony of the train's motorman, who specifically stated that the appellant along with other workers was staging a protest on the railway tracks and had even climbed upon the train and stopped it for over 15 minutes.Further considering the provision of the Railways Act, the judge said, "The law clarifies that if any Railway servant or any other person obstructs any train by squatting or picketing or during Rail Roko Agitation and Bandh etc., the offence under Section 174(a) of the Railways Act would get attracted.".The bench, therefore, upheld the conviction of the appellants by a lower court. It, however, did modified the sentence by doing away with the two years simple imprisonment imposed by the lower court."In democracy under our Constitution, people have right to protest against Government policies, action or inaction, provided the protest does not lead to commission of an offence by the protesters. Except for detaining the train for 15 minutes, there was no damage to private and public property by the protesters by and large it was a peaceful and symbolic protest. In view thereof, this Court finds that imprisonment of 2 years is unwarranted."The Court, therefore, set aside the sentence of imprisonment while maintaining the fine amount of ₹25,000 imposed on the appellants..Advocates Rohit Tripathi and Syed Zulfiqar Husain Naqvi appeared for the appellants.Advocates Suniti Sachan and Shiv Shukla represented the State..[Read Judgment]
