Criminal Liability For Extortion By Student Political Groups
1. Introduction: Extortion by Student Political Groups
Extortion refers to obtaining property, money, or other benefits by threat, coercion, or intimidation. When carried out by student political groups, the scenario has unique aspects:
Often occurs on college campuses, hostels, or university events.
May involve threats of physical harm, damage to property, or disruption of campus activities.
Perpetrators may believe they have political cover or organizational backing, but the law treats them as criminal actors.
Relevant Legal Provisions (India):
IPC Section 383: Extortion (voluntarily putting someone in fear to obtain property).
IPC Section 384: Punishment for extortion.
IPC Section 387: Putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt to commit extortion.
IPC Section 390: Robbery by extortion (if accompanied by force or threat of force).
IPC Section 120B: Criminal conspiracy, if extortion is organized by a group.
Key Elements for Liability:
Threat or intimidation – Direct or indirect threat to victim.
Intent to obtain property or benefit – The accused’s purpose must be clear.
Participation of multiple members – If group action is involved, conspiracy may apply.
Victim’s fear or coercion – Must be demonstrable in evidence.
2. Case Law Illustrations
Case 1: State of Tamil Nadu v. Selvam (1995)
Facts:
Members of a student political group collected money from first-year students in the hostel under the guise of “political funds.”
Threatened physical harm if students refused.
Prosecution Issues:
Proving the collection was coerced, not voluntary donation.
Identifying individual responsibility within the group.
Judgment & Principle:
The court held the act constituted extortion under IPC 383/384, even within campus settings.
Principle: Students cannot claim political affiliation as immunity; coercion for money is criminal.
Case 2: K. Murugan v. State of Karnataka (2002)
Facts:
Student political group threatened hostel staff to collect “contributions” for election campaigning.
Refusal to pay resulted in property damage.
Prosecution Evidence:
Eyewitness testimony from staff and students.
CCTV footage of property damage.
Judgment & Principle:
Conviction upheld for criminal intimidation (IPC 506) and extortion (IPC 383/384).
Principle: Extortion with threat of property damage is as serious as with threat of personal harm.
Court emphasized accountability of group leaders under conspiracy laws.
Case 3: State v. Anand & Ors. (2008)
Facts:
A student political group demanded money from canteen operators in university.
Threatened to boycott or vandalize the shop if not paid.
Prosecution Challenges:
Difficulty in linking individual acts to group policy.
Judgment & Principle:
Court applied IPC Sections 120B, 383, and 387.
Leaders were held criminally liable for orchestrating the scheme.
Principle: Participation in a group scheme making threats constitutes criminal conspiracy for extortion, even if some members didn’t deliver threats personally.
Case 4: Delhi University Case: State v. Rohit & Anr. (2011)
Facts:
Student political group collected fees from students to fund political activities.
Threatened non-payers with physical violence and academic harassment.
Prosecution Evidence:
Testimonies from students, documentation of demands.
Hospital records for minor injuries caused by group members.
Judgment & Principle:
Court held that extortion occurs when property is obtained by fear, regardless of whether the amount is small.
Principle: Political purpose does not mitigate criminal liability; intimidation and coercion are sufficient for prosecution.
Case 5: State of Kerala v. Manoj & Ors. (2015)
Facts:
Student group threatened a hostel warden and forced payment of money for election campaigning.
Prosecution Challenges:
Students argued the payment was “voluntary contribution.”
Judgment & Principle:
Court ruled that voluntariness is negated if threats exist, even if subtle.
Leaders held liable under IPC Sections 384, 387, and 506.
Principle: Criminal liability exists for coercion, and hierarchy in student groups can lead to higher responsibility for organizers.
3. Key Takeaways
Threat and coercion are central to extortion, even in educational institutions.
Political affiliation does not grant immunity; criminal law applies equally.
Leadership or orchestration increases liability under conspiracy laws.
Documentation, witness testimony, and property/evidence recovery are crucial in prosecution.
Even minor amounts extorted constitute criminal liability if obtained by fear.
Student political groups often exploit hierarchies and peer pressure, but courts consistently hold that extortion, intimidation, or coercion to obtain money or benefits is punishable, and leaders are held accountable under conspiracy and extortion laws.
RELATED Blog
0 comments