Being part of a protest does not make a person criminally liable for everything that happens in the crowd, the Rajasthan High Court has said, noting that mere presence at a large demonstration cannot by itself establish individual criminality. The court said investigators must distinguish between a person’s presence at a gathering and specific acts attributed to them, while balancing the right to dissent with the state’s duty to maintain public order.Justice Farjand Ali was hearing a petition filed by 23 people from Hanumangarh district in connection with a criminal case arising from a public protest and issued notice to the state and police directing that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioners in the meantime.“The right to voice dissent, to assemble peacefully and to espouse a cause, subject of course to the reasonable restrictions permissible in law, constitutes an essential facet of the constitutional scheme governing a democratic polity. A protest, by itself, cannot be equated with criminality merely because the expression of dissent causes inconvenience or displeasure to the authorities,” the court said on September 28.It added that at the same time, the constitutional protection available to peaceful expression cannot be permitted to become a shield for acts which are, independently and specifically, alleged to constitute cognisable offences. “The distinction between the two assumes significance while considering the entitlement of an individual to protection during the pendency of investigation,” it said. Justice Farjand Ali said the mere presence of a person at a demonstration cannot alone prove their participation in every alleged act committed during the gathering. (Image enhanced using AI)‘Mere presence not participation’The case arose from allegations linked to a public protest in which a large number of people had assembled. Against this backdrop, the court considered whether every person present at such a gathering could be subjected to the same degree of criminal culpability without specific attribution of individual acts.The petition was filed by 23 residents of Hanumangarh district. The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Vineet Jain and advocate Kunal Upadhyay, with Additional Advocate General Deepak Choudhary and public prosecutor Narendra Gehlot appearing for the state.Also Read | CJI Surya Kant: Any modified Form 6 not approved by Supreme CourtMaking it clear that it was not deciding whether the allegations in the criminal case were true or whether any of the petitioners were ultimately guilty, the high court examined whether the material placed before it, at this stage, justified subjecting the petitioners to coercive action just because of their alleged association with or presence in the larger protest assembly.Story continues below this adThe court acknowledged that the allegations included acts allegedly committed by certain members of the gathering. If those allegations were ultimately established against the persons responsible, the court said, they could attract legal consequences.But those allegations could not automatically be extended to everyone who was present at the protest. “Mere presence at the place of demonstration, without more, cannot ipso facto be treated as proof of participation in each and every overt act allegedly committed during the course of such assembly,” Justice Ali said.The court said this distinction assumes considerable significance where a protest involves a very large number of people. Simply being part of a gathering and actually participating in a particular alleged act are not necessarily the same thing.Criminal liability must be linkedThe court said that in cases concerning public protests, particularly large gatherings, the investigating agency would have to undertake the exercise of separating individual culpability from general allegations relating to the assembly.Story continues below this ad“Criminal liability is individual in character,” the court observed. Ordinarily, it said, criminal liability cannot be fastened on a person merely by association with a gathering unless the ingredients of the particular offence are otherwise attracted against that person.The observation does not mean that people participating in protests are immune from criminal proceedings. Justice Ali recognised the state’s legitimate authority to regulate public protest and assemblies in the interest of public order. The court also noted that the right to voice dissent, assemble peacefully and espouse a cause is subject to reasonable restrictions permissible in law.It said it was not required at this stage to return a finding either with regard to their culpability or the truthfulness of the allegations. The court also said the issue was not merely a dispute between private parties. It concerned the manner in which citizens’ right to participate in democratic expression and the power of the state to maintain public order operate within their respective constitutional fields.Also Read | Insurer rejects accident claim over ‘alcohol intake history’, widow secures Rs 60 lakhFinding that the matter warranted examination before any “precipitative or coercive action” was permitted against the petitioners, the high court decided to intervene without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations or the defence of the petitioners. It issued notice and directed that the matter be listed after four weeks. In the meantime, the court ordered that “no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners.”