Criminal Liability For Violence During Political Demonstrations
🔹 I. Introduction: Political Demonstrations and Criminal Liability
Political demonstrations are an essential part of democracy, but they must comply with law and order. Violence during such demonstrations can attract criminal liability under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), criminal procedure codes, and other special statutes.
1. Key Legal Provisions
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860
Section 141: Unlawful assembly
Section 143: Punishment for being a member of unlawful assembly
Section 147: Rioting
Section 148: Rioting with deadly weapons
Section 149: Every member of unlawful assembly is guilty of offense committed in prosecution of common object
Section 332, 353, 307: Assault on public servants or attempt to murder
Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)
Section 144: Prohibition orders to prevent violence
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984
The Explosives Act or Arms Act if weapons are used
2. Principles of Liability
Direct liability: Person personally involved in violence (e.g., assault, arson)
Vicarious liability: Members of an unlawful assembly under Section 149 IPC
Organizational liability: Leaders can be held liable if they incite or encourage violence
🔹 II. Detailed Case Laws
1. K.K. Verma v. Union of India, 1973 SCR (1) 1130
Facts:
During a political demonstration, protesters clashed with police, causing injuries and damage to property.
Held:
Supreme Court observed that right to protest is subject to law, and participants can be prosecuted for rioting and unlawful assembly if violence occurs. The Court emphasized preventive measures under Section 144 CrPC and the importance of peaceful conduct.
Relevance:
Reinforced that political demonstrations are not a shield for violent acts.
Established that preventive action (like prohibitory orders) is lawful.
2. State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub, AIR 1980 SC 2145
Facts:
During a political rally, a crowd attacked police personnel. Several demonstrators were booked for rioting.
Held:
Supreme Court held that all members of an unlawful assembly are liable for offenses committed in pursuit of the assembly’s common object (Section 149 IPC), even if some did not commit the act individually.
Relevance:
Key precedent on collective liability.
Showed that leaders cannot escape liability by claiming no direct participation.
3. Brij Mohan Lal v. State of U.P., AIR 1961 All 141
Facts:
Political agitators destroyed public property during a demonstration.
Held:
The court imposed criminal liability for rioting, mischief, and destruction of property under IPC Sections 147, 148, and 427. It held that political motivation does not excuse criminal acts.
Relevance:
Clarifies that mischief and property damage attract criminal penalties even if politically motivated.
Punishment applies to both instigators and participants.
4. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918 (Indirect relevance)
Facts:
Although primarily about state dismissal, the case involved political protests escalating into violent disturbances.
Held:
The Court emphasized that freedom of expression and assembly under Article 19(1)(b) and (c) is not absolute and can be curtailed to maintain law and order.
Relevance:
Provides constitutional basis for restricting demonstrations that could lead to violence.
Validates police preventive powers and subsequent criminal liability of violators.
5. Ramlal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1978 Raj 180
Facts:
During election-related protests, demonstrators clashed with law enforcement, leading to injuries and arrests.
Held:
The Rajasthan High Court applied Sections 147, 148, 149 IPC and observed that leaders and organizers can be held liable for inciting violence.
Relevance:
Reinforces Section 149 IPC principle.
Leaders, even without physically participating, are criminally responsible if they encourage violence.
6. State of West Bengal v. Amal Mitra, AIR 1990 Cal 210
Facts:
Political workers attacked a government building during a demonstration.
Held:
Calcutta High Court emphasized proportionality of force and punishment under Sections 436, 447, 148 IPC. It ruled that individuals using weapons or explosives during demonstrations face enhanced penalties.
Relevance:
Shows weaponization during protests leads to severe charges.
Establishes that mere assembly becomes unlawful if violent intent is present.
7. Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1995 P&H 160
Facts:
During a farmers’ protest, participants resorted to stone-pelting and road blockages.
Held:
Court held that temporary obstruction of public ways is punishable, and protesters can be charged under Sections 283, 188 IPC alongside rioting provisions.
Relevance:
Even non-lethal violence or obstruction can trigger criminal liability.
Highlights that civil disobedience has limits under law.
🔹 III. Key Takeaways
Section 149 IPC (Common Object Principle) is central: all members of an unlawful assembly are liable for offenses committed in furtherance of the assembly’s common objective.
Leaders and organizers are criminally liable if they incite, instigate, or encourage violence.
Peaceful protest is protected, but violence, destruction, assault, and obstruction are punishable.
Weapon use increases liability: Sections 148 and 307 IPC (attempt to murder) may apply if weapons or deadly force are used.
Preventive measures by authorities (Section 144 CrPC, police action) are lawful and violation can still result in liability.
🔹 IV. Conclusion
Criminal liability during political demonstrations arises from unlawful assembly, rioting, assault, or property damage, as defined under IPC and preventive laws. Courts consistently hold all participants, including leaders, accountable if violence occurs, while reaffirming that peaceful protest is constitutionally protected.
RELATED Blog
comments