Sakina Tashrifwala
Published on: September 7, 2022 at 18:00 IST
The Allahabad High Court recently highlighted that stopping a running train even through a peaceful protest would violate Section 174 (a) of Railways Act . It also said that the right to protest against government policies is not a definite one and is subject to certain restrictions.
The Court was hearing an Appeal filed by ex-Member of Parliament of the Congress party, Annu Tandon, and a few other Congress workers, who were booked under a “Rail Roko” protest in Unnao on June 12, 2017. They were accused of climbing a running train, which led to a long halt of 15 minutes.
”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 Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh further emphasized that the transgressing another law of the legislature while exercising the right to protest is not allowed.
“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 court observed.
The MP further argued that she did not force anyone to climb the train or stop it and stated that it was just a symbolic protest concerning the monstrosity of the BJP Government regarding the farmers in Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and other States.
The court considered the testimony and stated the Railway Act where if due to squatting or picketing, an obstruction to a running train would lead to an offence. However, the protest by Anuu Tandon stopped the train for merely 15 minutes.
“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.”
Except for the train being stopped for fifteen minutes, no harm to private property occurred, according to the sitting bench.
The demonstration in issue was noted to have been symbolic and nonviolent. The Railways Act of 1989’s Section 174(a) did not permit the prosecution of the appellants for the alleged offence.
As a result, the Court upheld the Rs. 25,000 fine imposed on the appellants while vacating the jail term.
