Re-affirming Bhajan Lal: Peaceful Protest, the Model Code of Conduct and the Limits of Criminalisation – A Comprehensive Commentary on Manchu Mohan Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025 INSC 916)

Introduction

The decision of the Supreme Court of India in Manchu Mohan Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025 INSC 916) revisits the delicate intersection between citizens’ fundamental right to peaceful protest and the State’s power to maintain public order, particularly during election time. The appellants – noted educationists and public figures – faced criminal prosecution for allegedly organising a student rally without permission during the 2019 General Election Model Code of Conduct (MCC) period. The rally, which highlighted issues surrounding delay in student fee reimbursement, came to be treated as public nuisance, wrongful restraint, violation of election law and breach of Section 34 of the Police Act, 1861.

After the Andhra Pradesh High Court refused to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), the Supreme Court had to decide whether the continuation of the criminal case served any legitimate purpose. In doing so, the Court has crystallised a significant principle: peaceful assemblies, even if conducted without prior permission in MCC period, cannot be mechanically prosecuted under nuisance-oriented provisions unless the statutory ingredients are clearly disclosed in the FIR and charge-sheet. The judgment is hence both a reaffirmation and an expansion of the celebrated State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal doctrine.

Summary of the Judgment

• The Court allowed the criminal appeals, set aside the High Court’s order and quashed FIR No. 102/2019 and C.C. No. 1015/2021.
• It held that even accepting the prosecution story at face value, prima facie ingredients of Sections 290, 341, 171F read with Section 34 IPC and Section 34 of the Police Act were absent.
• The appellants’ act was characterised as a peaceable exercise of Articles 19(1)(a) & 19(1)(b) rights; the MCC does not, by itself, convert a peaceful protest by private citizens into a criminal offence.
• The Court faulted the High Court for not applying the Bhajan Lal parameters, especially clauses (1)–(3) of para 102.
• Continuance of the prosecution would constitute an “abuse of the process of law”; therefore inherent power under Section 482 CrPC had to be exercised.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
   Paragraph 102 sets out seven illustrative categories in which power to quash should be exercised. The Supreme Court relied mainly on categories (1)–(3) (no offence disclosed or investigation unwarranted). This precedent provided the doctrinal framework enabling the Court to analytically match the facts against statutory ingredients.
2. Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749
   Cited for the proposition that High Courts (and by parity, the Supreme Court) possess expansive powers of judicial review over criminal process to “keep the stream of justice clean and pure”.
3. Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692
   Emphasised that where ultimate conviction is improbable, continuation of prosecution is oppressive. The Court used this principle to declare that “no useful purpose is likely to be served” by trying the appellants.

While these decisions pre-date the present case, the novel contribution of Manchu Mohan Babu is the contextual application during an MCC regime – an area previously marked by executive guidelines rather than hard judicial precedent.

B. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Textual Ingredient Analysis: Each alleged statutory provision was dissected. Illustratively, Section 290 IPC requires “public nuisance”; Section 341 IPC needs “voluntary obstruction”; Section 171F IPC involves “undue influence/personation at election”. None were traceable in the FIR/charge-sheet narrative which, at best, described a 4-hour sloganeering event.
2. Constitutional Right v. Statutory Restriction: Articles 19(1)(a)&(b) guarantee free speech and peaceful assembly. Reasonable restrictions must survive Article 19(2)&(3) tests. Absent concrete evidence of obstruction or violence, criminal prosecution infringes the core of fundamental freedoms.
3. Model Code of Conduct is Not Law: The Court implicitly clarified that MCC, a non-statutory instrument binding primarily on political parties and candidates, cannot be relied upon per se to predicate criminal liability of private citizens.
4. Preventing Abuse of Process: Applying Bhajan Lal, the Court concluded prosecution was “maliciously instituted or with ulterior motives” – notably, to “scuttle constitutionally guaranteed rights”.

C. Potential Impact of the Judgment

• Higher Threshold for Police FIRs in Protest Situations: Law-enforcement agencies nationwide will need to evaluate whether statutory ingredients are met before invoking Sections 290/341 IPC for demonstrations.
• Constraining misuse of Section 34 Police Act, 1861: The antiquated provision is often employed as a catch-all. The Court’s strict reading limits its future application.
• Clarification on MCC Applicability: Private citizens engaging in issue-based protests during election periods cannot be automatically hauled up under criminal law merely for lack of permission.
• Guidance for High Courts on Section 482 CrPC: The judgment emphasises rigorous adherence to Bhajan Lal categories, potentially leading to a higher success rate for quashing petitions in similar contexts.
• Promotion of Democratic Participation: By sheltering peaceful protests from criminalisation, the decision enhances participatory democracy and may embolden civil society activism.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 482 CrPC (Inherent Powers)

The residuary power of the High Court to pass orders to prevent abuse of court process or to secure the ends of justice – used to quash FIRs/ proceedings in appropriate cases.

Bhajan Lal Test

A seven-fold illustrative yardstick deciding when quashing is justified. The first three categories deal with absence of offence in the FIR; others relate to legal bar, mala fides, etc.

Public Nuisance (Section 290 IPC)

An act causing “common injury, danger or annoyance” to the public; not every inconvenience qualifies – it must affect the general public or a large section.

Wrongful Restraint (Section 341 IPC)

Voluntary obstruction preventing a person from proceeding in any direction in which they have a right to proceed. Momentary congestion or mere slowing of traffic is insufficient.

Model Code of Conduct (MCC)

A set of guidelines issued by the Election Commission to regulate political parties/ candidates; it lacks statutory force and violations are ordinarily dealt with through administrative measures, not criminal prosecution.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Manchu Mohan Babu deftly balances public order considerations with fundamental freedoms, fortifying the notion that criminal law is a measure of last resort. By holding that peaceful, permission-less protests do not ipso facto constitute offences under nuisance-related provisions, the Court not only vindicates the appellants but also re-emphasises critical safeguards against misuse of the criminal justice system. Going forward, trial courts, investigating agencies and constitutional courts alike will likely invoke this judgment to filter out vexatious prosecutions stemming from civic activism, especially during the politically sensitive election cycles. In essence, the decision serves as a robust reminder that democracy flourishes not through the suppression of dissent but through its careful protection.