(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records pertaining to the Crime No. 38 of 2025 dated 06.02.2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Devipattinam Police station, Ramanathapuram district and quash the same insofar as these petitioners are concerned.)
1. This criminal original petition has been filed to quash the first information report pending as against the petitoiners in Crime No.38 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Devipattinam Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.
2. The petitioners are accused Nos. 5, 8, 9, 11, 13 ,16 to 20 in Crime No.38 of 2025, which is registered for the offences under Sections 126 (2), 189 (2), 192, 292 and 132 of the BNS and Sections 4A(1-a) and 4B of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959. 3.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners and several others have assembled unlawfully in front of the TASMAC Shop No.7008 at Nadaar Valsai, Ramanathapuram district, obstructed the public pathway, held protest placards, political flags and raised slogans demanding the said TASMAC shop’s closure without obtaining any permission from the respondent police. Therefore, the case came to be registered in Crime No.38 of 2025, based on the complaint of the 2nd respondent Village Administrative Officer / defacto complainant.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners conducted the protest demading closure of a TASMAC outlet in a peaceful manner by raising their objections, however, they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the said TASMAC outlet is located in a residential area, causing inconvenience and disturbance to the resindents and particularly to women and school going children. There are no materials to show that the petitioners caused disurbance to the public and they have not indulged in any offence as alleged in the first information report. The petitioners have conducted the protest peacefully exercising their democratic rights. Hence, the learned counsel prayed that the first information report in Crime No.38 of 205 on the file of the respondent police be quashed.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl Side) appearing for the respondent police submits that the petitioners along with others laid siege to a TASMAC outlet without obtaining permission from the authorities and caused nuisance to the public and hence the case has been registered as against the petitioners and others and the case is under investigation.
6. Though notice was served on the 2nd respondent and his name was printed in the cause list, there is no representation for the 2nd respondent.
7. This court considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials placed on record.
8. The petitioners are residents of Alangulam village, Ramanathapuram district. They have moved this application to quash the FIR registered against them by the 1st respondent Police based on the complaint of the 2nd respondent Village Administrative Officer. The 2nd respondent VAO has lodged a complaint on 06.02.2025 at 1:00 pm that the petitioners along with others without obtaining any permission have conducted a protest to remove TASMAC shop No.7708 located at Alangulam village, Ramanathapuram district. Based on this complaint of the VAO, the 1st respondent police have registered a case as against the petitioners and others in Crime No. 39 of 2025 for the offences under Sections 126 (2), 189 (2), 192, 292 and 132 of the BNS and Sections 4A(1-a) and 4B of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959.
9. The crux of the complaint is that the petitioners without getting any permission have conducted protest against a government TASMAC shop, seeking removal of the shop from the village.
10. Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) is a government organisation established on 23.05.1983 to sell Indian Made Foreign Liquors. The Corporation itself has been established with an object to prevent deaths due to illicit arrack. Arrack, an intoxicating substance consisting of alchohol has caused deaths even recently in Kallakurchi district, where 66 persons are reported to have lost their lives due to consumption of illicit arrack.
11. Consumption of alcohol or any intoxicating drinks are injurious to health and the Constitution of India mandates the State to prohibit the consumption of intoxicating drinks injurious to health except, for medical purposes under Article 47, as a Directive Principle of State Policy. The same is extracted hereunder:
“47. Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health - The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and, in particular, the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health.”
12. In furtherance to this principle, the Tamil Nadu government has enacted a legislation in the name of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 dealing with the prohibition on the manufacturing, sale and consumption of intoxicating liquors and drugs in Tamil Nadu.
13. Rule 22 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Supply by Wholesale) Rules, 1983 mandates statutory warning labels on bottles containing alcoholic beverages. Accordingly, all the bottles containing alcoholic beverages are expected to display the following warning:
14. The Food Standards and Safety Authority of India has introduced the Food Safety and Standards (Alcoholic Beverages Regulations) 2018, which also mandates the printing of statutory warning in English and regional language, cautioning about the consequences of alcohol consumption as per Regulation 5.12. In line with the above regulation, the Tamil Nadu government has also amended the Rules vide GO(Ms)No.28, dated 27.08.2019, with the following warning to be printed on all bottles:
“CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL IS INJURIOUS TO HEALTH”
“BE SAFE - DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE”
15. The evils of alcohol consumption have been realised by our forefathers even 2000 years ago and our renowned Tamil poet Thiruvalluar has allotted a separate chapter in Thirukkural on the non-consumption of alcohol and has warned against the consumption of alcohol in the following couplets:
Meaning: A sleeping person is no different from a dead person; similarly, a person who is in the influence of alcohol is no different from a person who consumes poison.
Meaning: When even a mother who forgives all the faults of her son, she cannot bear to look at him, when he is drunk, how can others be expected to tolerate him?
16. Mahatma Gandhi, the father of our nation has also emphasized on the non-consumption of liquor as under: “Alcohol makes a man forget himself and while its effects last, he becomes utterly incapable of doing anything useful. Those who take a drinking, ruin themselves and ruin their people. They lose all sense of decency and propriety.”
17. Following the above principle, the Government of Madras State was the first in the country to impose the policy of prohibition. The prohibition of liquor was introduced in Tamil Nadu in the year 1937 and continued till the year 1971. The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) was established on 29.05.1983 with an object to prevent deaths on account of illicit arrack. Though this corporation has been established with a laudable object, it has become a revenue generating corporation for the government and therefore, it has been patronized by the government disregarding other consequences of alcohol on the health of human beings.
18. Consumption of alcohol affects internal organs and this leads to greater medical expenses. It results in negative effects not only on the health of the people consuming the liquor but also their family, surroundings and other people in general. Some of their ill effects as available as per government data reveals as under:
(i) Alcohol is classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) which is the highest risk group and also includes asbestos, radiation and tobacco. A Group 1 carcinogen is an agent which can cause or promote the development of cancer in humans.
(ii) According to the World Health Organisation, 2,98,000 yearly deaths are caused due to alcohol-related road accidents and out of the said 2,98,000 deaths, 1,56,000 innocent people, who had not drunk at the time of accident, died. The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways has also released a report on “Road Accidents in India”, according to which, there were 3,322 deaths and 7,845 injuries, due to drunk driving in the year 2019 which increased to 4,201 deaths and 8,809 injuries respectively in the year 2021.
(iii) Another social harm due to alcoholism is the increasing rate of domestic violence faced by women and the children. According to the data from the National Family Health Survey - 5 (2019-20), around 32% of women in India and 40% of women in Tamil Nadu faced domestic violence from their husbands. The rate of domestic violence in Tamil Nadu is the 5th highest among all States. More importantly, the data also reveals that 71% of women experienced violence in households, where their husbands drink often, 46% of women experienced violence in households when their husbands drink sometimes, whereas the domestic violence rate is only 23% when the husbands never drink.
(iv) According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), the report on Suicides in India - 2021, reveals that a total number of 1,64,033 suicides were reported in the country during the year 2021, out of which 6.4% of the suicides could be attributed to “Drug Abuse / Alcoholic Addiction”. It was stated that this was the 3rd most common cause of suicides, next to family problems and illness. This rate had increased to 6.8% in 2022.
(v) According to the data of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (MoSJE), more than 5.7 crore people in India are affected by harmful or dependent alcohol use.
19. The above data reveals the adverse impact of alcohol consumption on the wellbeing and social harmony of our country. A Division Bench of this court in M. Thaha Mohamed vs. The District Collector, Madurai District and others (W.P.(MD)No.19278 of 2020, dated 23.12.2020) has noted the impact of alcohol consumption on the welfare of our country and observed as under:
“16. This Court cannot lose sight of what is happening in the society due to drinking habits of the people. Drinking is the root cause for many evils. In numerous offences are committed daily due to alcohol consumption especially against women and children. Many families are shattered and the victims are women and children whose right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is violated due to liquor. Drunken driving is responsible for loss of number of precious lives and injuries of many. It is stated that 19 Indians die daily due to drunken driving in India and it proves that drunken driving is one of the deadliest causes of accidents......”
20. The Constitution of India envisions the State as a Welfare State—a model of governance wherein the government is not merely a sovereign authority, but a proactive agent committed to the overall development of its citizens. A Welfare State aims to guarantee the dignity, health, education, and economic security of its citizens. It does not limit itself to maintaining law and order like a Police State, but goes further to ensure that every individual is able to lead a life of dignity and purpose. The duty of the State to protect and promote public health is of primary importance. Hence, a duty is cast upon the State to ensure the good health of the citizens as per Article 47 of the Indian Constitution.
21. In Vincent Panikurlangara vs. Union of India & Ors [1987 SCC (CRI) 329], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the duty of the State to improve public health is of the highest priority and the relvant portion is extracted as under:
“In a series of pronouncements during the recent years this Court has culled out from the provisions of Part IV of the Constitution these several obligations of the State and called upon it to effectuate them in order that the resultant pictured by the Constitution Fathers may become a reality. As pointed out by us, maintenance and improvement of public health have to rank high as these are indispensable to the very physical existence of the community and on the betterment of these depends the building of the society of which the Constitution makers envisaged. Attending to public health, in our opinion, therefore, is of high priority--perhaps the one at the top.”
22. Moreover, the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 to every citizen also includes the right to live a healthy life. In Consumer Education and Research Centre vs. Union of India [(1995) 3 SCC 42], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the right to health and medical care is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 read with Articles 39(c), 41 and 43 of the Constitution.
23. The alcoholic beverages containing ethanol is a toxic one and psychoactive and it directly affects the brain, leads to changes in mood and thoughts and also leads to addiction. According to the WHO, the consumption of alcohol has been linked to the following 31 diseases:
“1.Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD); 2.Alcoholic Liver Cirrhosis; 3.Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (Steatosis); 4.Alcoholic Hepatitis; 5.Alcoholic Cardiomyopathy; 6.AlcoholInduced Acute Pancreatitis; 7.Alcohol-Induced Chronic Pancreatitis; 8.Esophageal Cancer; 9.Liver Cancer (Hepatocellular Carcinoma); 10.Breast Cancer; 11.Colorectal Cancer; 12.Oral Cavity Cancer; 13.Pharyngeal Cancer; 14.Laryngeal Cancer; 15.Hypertension (Alcohol-Related); 16.Ischemic Stroke; 17.Hemorrhagic Stroke;18.Atrial Fibrillation (Alcohol-Induced Arrhythmia); 19.Alcoholic Gastritis; 20.Alcohol-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy; 21.Wernicke–Korsakoff Syndrome; 22.Tuberculosis (AlcoholAttributable Risk); 23.HIV/AIDS Progression (AlcoholAttributable Risk); 24.Pneumonia (Alcohol-Related Immune Weakening); 25.Alcoholic Myopathy; 26.Anemia (AlcoholInduced Hematologic Disorder); 27.Alcohol-Induced Thrombocytopenia; 28.Macrocytosis (Enlarged RBCs due to Alcohol); 29.Peptic Ulcer Disease (Alcohol-Associated); 30.Gout (Alcohol-Associated); 31.Osteoporosis (AlcoholInduced Bone Disease.”
24. The WHO reported 2.6 million deaths on account of alcohol consumption in the year 2019. Out of these, 4,74,000 deaths were due to cardiovascular diseases, which is also an adverse health outcome of alcohol consumption. Considering the impact of alcohol consumption on health as well as the society, the government has declared that liquor will ruin the family and is injurious to health.
25. Due to the adverse impact of liquor on the health and social wellbeing, the Tamil Nadu Government has introduced the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003 and Rule 8 of the aforesaid Rules mandates that no liquor shop shall be established near any place of worship or educational institutions. The petitioners, who are being affected on account of consumption of alcohol by others, are entitled to question the government for setting up of the TASMAC shop in their area.
26. Our country is a democratic country and the government is formed by the people and for the welfare of the people. When the main principle of the constitution is to serve the people, any policy decision of the government, affecting the health of the people, is liable to be questioned by the public.
27. Moreover, all citizens of this country have the right guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, to assemble and protest peacefully. The act of protest is one of the legitimate ways for the people to voice out their grievances against the policies and administrative actions of the government. It is the right of the society, whose health and family is devastated by the ill effects of liquor, to demand the closure of such liquor outlets. When they express their demand and protest in a peaceful manner, it cannot be said that an offence is committed.
28. The 2nd respondent /VAO without any reference to the prohibition order, if any, imposed in that area, has made a vague complaint as if the petitioners assembled, despite prohibition order. An assembly for the purpose of peaceful protest cannot fall within the term “unlawful assembly” under Section 141 IPC. In Prakash Karat & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr (CRL. MC.1898 of 2013 dated 13.10.2022), the Kerala High Court held that assembly for the purpose of peaceful protest cannot be considered to be an unlawful assembly and the relevant portions are extracted as under:
“18. As mentioned earlier, section 141 IPC significantly uses the words ‘criminal force’ in the three facets of the provision. Thus, a protest or an assembly of persons without any criminal force or show of criminal force would not make the assembly unlawful. An assembly of more than five persons gathered for a peaceful protest cannot fall within the term unlawful assembly. The right to protest peaceably is an essential ingredient of the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India. An assembly of persons without arms or without criminal force or without any intent to commit an offence can only be a lawful assembly, which is not prohibited. Such an assembly is a formation in the exercise of the right to freedom of every citizen guaranteed under Article 19(1) of the Constitution.”
29. Prohibitory orders are preventive measures invoked by Executive Magistrates to maintain public order, prevent disturbances, and address unlawful assemblies. Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) empowers the Executive Magistrate to issue such prohibitory orders. The prohibitory orders can be imposed in order to deal with emergency situations and to prevent any (i) Obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed; (ii) Danger to human life, health or safely; (iii) Disturbance of the public tranquillity, or a riot, or an affray.
30. As per this provision, the prohibitory orders shall not remain in force for longer than 2 months which can be extended up-to 6 months by the State Government in exceptional circumstances. Since such orders interfere with the fundamental rights of the citizens under Article 19, they must be passed on the basis of sufficient materials and not exercised in a casual manner.
31. In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India [(2020) 3 SCC 637], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that prohibitory orders cannot be used as a tool to prevent the legitimate expression of opinions and dissent and the relevant portions are extracted as under:
“118. In this context, it is sufficient to note that the power under Section 144, Cr.P.C. cannot be used as a tool to prevent the legitimate expression of opinion or grievance or exercise of any democratic rights. Our Constitution protects the expression of divergent views, legitimate expressions and disapproval, and this cannot be the basis for invocation of Section 144, Cr.P.C. unless there is sufficient material to show that there is likely to be an incitement to violence or threat to public safety or danger.
32. In Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta vs. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta [(1983) 4 SCC 522], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the CrPC does not contemplate the issuance of repetitive prohibitory orders and if repetitive orders are made it would clearly amount to abuse of the power conferred by Section 144 of the Code.
33. In Muruganandam and other vs The state rep. By The Inspector of police (Crl.O.P.No.14103 of 2025, dated 03.06.2025), this court has dealt with a similar issue wherein members of the public gathered to protest for the closure of a TASMAC outlet and cases were filed against them. This court quashed the the cases after noting that it was an abuse of the process of law:
“8. In cases of this nature, where members of the public particularly women from the local community raise legitimate concerns about the harmful social impact of liquor outlets operating in residential areas, peaceful protests cannot be treated as criminal acts. The residents, driven by genuine concern, have repeatedly organized agitations and submitted representations to the authorities, yet their voices have gone unheard. While political parties, including those currently in power, made promises during election campaigns to reduce the number of TASMAC outlets, in reality, these shops are merely being relocated rather than shut down, leaving the core issue unaddressed.
9. If the police were to register criminal cases against every individual who participates in such peaceful protests, it would lead to the unjust criminalization of democratic expression. In fact, if such a principle were to be applied consistently, hundreds of women across the State who have taken part in similar demonstrations would also be liable for prosecution. This case clearly shows how the criminal justice system is being wrongly used against people who acted not for themselves, but for the welfare of the community.
10. This Court is of the considered opinion that peaceful protest, particularly on matters affecting public health and social welfare, is a constitutionally protected right. Citizens are entitled to express their views and demand accountability from the government, provided such protests remain peaceful and non-violent.”
34. In light of the above discussion, the continuation of criminal proceedings as against the petitioners would not serve the ends of justice and would instead result in the misuse of the criminal justice system against individuals acting in furtherance of a legitimate public cause.
35. Taking into account the above facts and circumstances, allowing the continuation of proceedings in Crime No. 38 of 2025 would be an abuse of process of law and therefore, this Court in exercise of the powers under Section 528 of the BNSS, quashes the proceedings in Crime No.38 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.
36. Accordingly this petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
 |
This Product is Licensed to , |