In a major relief to Telugu actor-producer Mohan Babu and his son Vishnu Manchu, the Supreme Court on Thursday quashed a criminal case registered against them in a 2019 student protest in Tirupati over fee reimbursement.
“A reading of the FIR (First Information Report) and the charge-sheet neither discloses any act committed or illegal commission that caused common injury, danger, annoyance to the public or any section of the public or interference with their public rights, nor do they disclose any voluntary obstruction to a person that prevents them from proceeding in any direction that they have a right to proceed in," said the two-judge bench of the top court, headed by Justice BV Nagarathna and including Justice KV Viswanathan, in their verdict.
The SC quashed the FIR against the father-son duo after finding that the offences invoked against the accused were not made out in the case. "The appellants (Babu and Vishnu) were exercising their right to freedom of speech and expression and to assemble peacefully," the court said.
As per the prosecution case, ahead of the Lok Sabha and Assembly elections in Andhra Pradesh in 2019, Babu and his son along with others had held a rally along the Tirupati-Madanapalli road and raised slogans against the state government for not granting student fee reimbursements.
They were booked on a complaint made by the person in charge of the Model Code of Conduct Team-IV, Chandragiri assembly constituency.
In January this year, the Andhra Pradesh High Court refused to quash the proceedings in the case, forcing the father-son duo to knock the doors of the top court seeking relief in the case.
The HC, in its order, observed that there were specific allegations against the accused.
When the top court started hearing Babu and his son's appeal, it found that the ingredients of the offences invoked in the case were entirely absent.
"There is no material to suggest that there was any undue influence at elections, impersonation at elections or any act committed with the intention to interfere with the free exercise of electoral rights," said the apex court in its 17-page verdict, a copy of which was accessed by TNIE.
While giving a clean chit to them, the apex court added, "Further they do not suggest that any act was committed on a road or in an open place within the limits of a town that caused inconvenience, annoyance or posed a risk of danger or inquiry or damage to the public, and do not disclose any of the eight specified actions under Section 34 of the Police Act, 1861."
The top court went on to add that on the contrary, the accused were exercising their right to protest.
“The appellants were exercising their right to freedom of speech and expression and to assemble peacefully. Therefore, no purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution," the apex court further said.
While commenting on the HC verdict, the SC said that the HC erred in concluding that there were specific allegations against the appellants and that there were no tenable grounds to quash the proceedings.