Supreme Court stays proceedings in case against Karnataka CM Siddaramaiah over 2022 protest march

The Supreme Court on Monday stayed proceedings in a criminal case, related to a protest demonstration against Karnataka Chief Minister (CM) Siddaramaiah, State ministers Ramalinga Reddy and MB Patil and All India Congress Committee (AICC) leader Randeep Singh Surjewala [Siddaramaiah vs State of Karnataka and anr].. .A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra also issued notice to the State of Karnataka and other respondents on a plea by Siddaramaiah and others against an order of the Karnataka High Court refusing to quash the proceedings."Issue notice, returnable in 6 weeks. In the meantime, operation of the impugned order dated 4 06.02.2024 and further proceedings in the CC No.12763/2023 qua the petitioners, are stayed," the Court stated. .The top court was hearing the petitions filed by the CM, other ministers and senior Congress leaders against Karnataka High Court's refusal to quash the case lodged against them in connection with the protest march held in 2022.In the case dating back to February 2022, Siddaramaiah and others were detained for holding a protest to demand the resignation and arrest of then Minister KS Eeshwarappa following the death by suicide of contractor Santosh. While refusing to quash the proceedings before the trial court, the High Court on February 6 directed them to appear before the trial court on different dates. The High Court also had imposed a fine of ₹10,000 each on the four leaders.This led to instant challenge before the Supreme Court..During the hearing today before the top court, Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Devadatt Kamat and Siddharth Luthra appeared for the political leaders. Singhvi argued that the criminal case was registered for exercising the right to protest and it is totally against the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 (1) of the Constitution. .However, Justice Mishra remarked that the offences which have been invoked in the case, have been kept in the statute books keeping in view the reasonable restrictions under the fundamental rights."Else whatever disturbances are there on roads, we have to quash. Your argument is ... politicians do it, it has to be quashed?," the Court said..Justice Mishra also asked whether permission had been sought for the demonstration. "You cannot go one fine morning and assemble in thousands, and [then] says nothing can happen to us because we are protesting..."Sibal in response submitted that there law and order cannot be a ground to deny a fundamental right. "I have a constitutional right, a fundamental right," the senior counsel said..The Court then recorded the arguments of petitioners and proceeded to stay the proceedings before trial court..As per Siddaramaiah's appeal, none of the ingredients of Section 141 (unlawful assembly) of Indian Penal Code are met in the case. “An assembly of five or more persons will become unlawful only when they have a common object and the said object falls within the categories mentioned as first to fifth in Section 141 IPC. When the common object of the assembly does not fall within any of the five categories specified in Section 141, the said assembly cannot be said to be an unlawful assembly,” the plea said.He further contended that there was no allegation whatsoever that the assembly had led to any violence. The assembly was formed only to demand the resignation of a minister whose name was involved in a suicide case and there was no common object to use or show any criminal force by Siddaramaiah or any other accused, the plea stated..[Read order]