NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday stayed proceedings against Karnataka chief minister Siddaramaiah and 35 other Congress leaders for a April 2022 protest in Bengaluru to demand the resignation of then minister KS Eshwarappa after he was named by a contractor in a suicide note.

“If all that is stated in the charge sheet is what is alleged against you, then everything (concerning political protest) would be muzzled,” a bench of justices Hrishikesh Roy and PK Mishra observed as the top court posted the matter after six weeks.

“In the meantime, the proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.54/2022 are stayed,” the bench said in its order.

Chief minister Siddaramaiah and 35 Congress leaders including state ministers Ramalinga Reddy, MB Patil and Congress leader Randeep Singh Surjewala approached the Supreme Court after the Karnataka high court dismissed their plea to to cancel the criminal case and directed them to face trial in the trial court.

The presiding judge of the special court for MP/MLAs, which is hearing the case, had summoned the accused on February 2024. They were charged under Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) dealing with unlawful assembly along with Section 103 of Karnataka Police Act regarding breach of law and order registered at High Grounds police station, Bengaluru City.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for the chief minister while senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Sidharth Luthra and Devadutt Kamat appeared for the other accused.

The petition filed by advocate Rajesh Inamdar pointed out that the high court verdict rejecting their plea should be set aside on the ground that it does not refer to to the point whether an offence under Section 141 (unlawful assembly) was made out against the petitioners. On this ground alone the impugned judgment and order deserve to be set aside,” the petition said.

Singhvi underscored this point, pointing that the chargesheet filed by the police on February 12, 2023 “does not make out any of the ingredients required to attract the offence under Section 141 IPC”.

He said the petitioners were shouting slogans seeking resignation of then minister KS Eshwarappa in the Basavaraj Bommai-headed BJP government after he was named in a suicide note by a contractor who died in 2022 and they were taken into custody when they tried to march from the Congress office to the residence of the chief minister.

“There can be no meaning of our fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) if this kind of peaceful political demonstration leads to arrest under Section 141,” Singhvi said, referring to the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.

He argued that an offence of ‘unlawful assembly” under Section 141 is made out only when an assembly of five or more persons tries to “overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force” state or central government, Parliament or state legislature, or any public servant in exercise of the lawful power of such public servant. Further, this provision provides that the assembly must have a “common object” in indulging in violence.

Singhvi said there were instances where high courts have quashed cases lodged against politicians on finding no case made out against them for unlawful assembly while engaging in political protests.

The bench initially raised doubts over this reasoning.

“Your argument is that if politicians engage in protest, they enjoy protection. Did you seek permission to hold the demonstration? You cannot one fine morning assemble in thousands and say that we shall protest as we are protected.”

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal replied that political demonstration is an aspect of Article 19(1)(a) and the state can only restrict this right under Article 19(2) on grounds of public order.

“I have a constitutional right under Article 19(1)(a) and the restriction cannot be on ground of law and order but public order. Here the restriction is based on law and order situation. Our action, per se, cannot be an offence. Otherwise, it will lead to a dangerous situation where every kind of protest will be hazardous.”

The petitioners also argued there was no allegation that the protest led to any violence or use of criminal force to present an imminent threat to the public at large or to the members of the then ruling dispensation or any public servant. This aspect was overlooked by the high court, the petition said.