If any Minister, public servant, or other competent authority, acting under the pressure of such an unconstitutional and unlawful demand, decides to withdraw all FIRs in violation of law, such person shall also be personally accountable for his or her actions under the laws of India.
GenZ Lawyers Association Announces Filing of Contempt Petition Against Union Minister J. P. Nadda and other ministers who acted against law.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed that no Minister, Chief Minister, senior public official, or Government is above the law or beyond the authority of judicial orders. In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Ashok Khot, (2006) 5 SCC 1, the Supreme Court convicted the then Congress Government’s Forest Minister, Shri Swarup Singh Naik, and the then Principal Secretary (Forests), Shri Ashok Khot, for wilful disobedience of the Court’s orders and interference with the due administration of justice, sentencing each of them to one month’s simple imprisonment.
Similarly, in State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Sarangdharsingh Shivdassingh Chavan and Ors., (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 477, the Supreme Court imposed costs of ₹10 lakh upon the State of Maharashtra, likely to be recovered from the then Chief Minister. These decisions reaffirm the constitutional principle that Ministers, Chief Ministers, public servants, and Governments are equally bound by the rule of law and by binding judicial orders, and that violations may attract personal legal consequences in accordance with law.
Media organisations, digital platforms, the so-called ecosystem, influencers, and other persons who directly or indirectly propagate, support, legitimise, or glorify unconstitutional or unlawful demands, or promote lawlessness, are not immune from legal accountability. They are liable to be accused of offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), criminal contempt of court, unlawful interference with the due administration of justice, abetment, criminal conspiracy, and incitement, as may be applicable under law.
Constitutional Democracy Means Obedience to Law, Not Rule by Numbers
No Individual, Political Party, Majority Group, or Government Can Defy Binding Supreme Court Judgments. Binding Supreme Court directions apply equally to governments, political parties, public authorities, and citizens under Article 141 of the Constitution. No government, political party, majority group, or individual can disregard the law declared by the Supreme Court or its binding judicial precedents.
- The Constitution protects peaceful and lawful protest—not violence, arson, vandalism, destruction of public property, or attacks on police personnel, public servants, journalists, or members of the public. Protesters cannot claim immunity from criminal law or binding judicial directions merely because the alleged offences occurred during a public agitation.
- Protests conducted in violation of binding Supreme Court guidelines or judicial directions may lose constitutional protection and attract legal consequences, including action under the ordinary criminal law and, where the statutory requirements are satisfied, proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act.
- Blanket demands for withdrawal of FIRs involving allegations of violence, arson, vandalism, attacks on public servants, police personnel, journalists, government supporters, or other serious offences cannot override the Rule of Law. Criminal liability must be determined strictly in accordance with the Constitution, statutory law, and binding judicial precedents.
- Majority support or political popularity cannot legitimise actions prohibited by the Constitution or binding Supreme Court judgments. In a constitutional democracy, the Rule of Law—not numerical strength—remains supreme.
Constitutional Rights Are Determined by Law, Not by Numbers
One of the fundamental principles of constitutional democracy is that legality is determined by the Constitution and the Rule of Law—not by the number of people assembled on the streets. Neither a numerical majority nor political popularity can determine what is lawful or unlawful. Constitutional rights and legal obligations are defined by the Constitution, statutes enacted by Parliament, and the binding judgments of constitutional courts.
This principle finds philosophical expression in the celebrated observation of John Stuart Mill, quoted with approval in R. v. Kopyto, [1987] O.J. No. 1052; (1987) 39 CCC (3d) 1:
“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”
The statement of universally accepted law underscores a fundamental constitutional value: truth and legality are not determined by majority opinion. Constitutional democracies exist precisely to ensure that the rights of individuals and the Rule of Law are protected even against overwhelming public or political pressure.
Accordingly, however large or influential a public protest may be, those participating in it cannot compel the Government to act contrary to the Constitution, statutory law, or the binding law declared by the Supreme Court. Decisions relating to the registration, investigation, prosecution, withdrawal or quashing of criminal cases must be taken strictly in accordance with the Constitution and the governing legal framework, not in response to numerical strength or political pressure.
Peaceful protest is undoubtedly protected by the Constitution. Equally, however, the constitutional guarantee of peaceful assembly does not confer a right to demand that public authorities disregard binding judicial precedents, abandon statutory duties, or grant immunity from criminal investigation or prosecution contrary to law. Where criminal proceedings involve allegations of serious offences, their continuation or withdrawal must be determined through the legal process established by law and not by the size of a crowd or the intensity of public agitation.
In a constitutional republic, the Rule of Law—not the Rule of Numbers—remains supreme.
- The criminal justice system must be allowed to function independently and in accordance with law. Where allegations disclose the commission of cognizable offences, the decision whether an FIR should be registered, investigated, quashed or prosecuted is governed by the Constitution, the applicable criminal statutes and judicial precedents—not by political pressure or public campaigns. If any individual, organisation or political leader attempts to intimidate, obstruct or improperly influence the investigation, prosecution or adjudication of criminal cases, such conduct may, give rise to serious legal consequences. Such conduct substantially interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings or the administration of justice and amount to criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Similarly, where a person encourages public authorities to disregard binding directions or the law declared by the Supreme Court, such conduct constitutes civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act. Likewise, if any person has gone beyond public advocacy and has actively participated in planning, facilitating, shielding, financing, advocating, supporting the commission of an offence or the evasion of lawful investigation, such conduct may attract liability under the relevant provisions relating to criminal conspiracy, abetment, harbouring offenders, screening offenders, or obstruction of justice, as the case may be. However, such criminal liability can be inferred from public statements, press conferences, interviews or political speeches.
In Shyni Varghese v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2008 SCC OnLine Del 204 the Hon’ble High Court held that;
“52. …. The very fact that the petitioners took part in the press conference and gave incorrect facts to the media prima facie shows that they were a part of the conspiracy to conceal the offence and screen the offenders. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State v. Nalini and Ors. reported as, the existence of a conspiracy has to be inferred from proved circumstances, as in an offence which is shrouded with secrecy no direct evidence of common intention of the conspirators can normally be produced before the Court nor had the stage for production of such evidence if any, arisen.”
Hon’ble High Court in the case of Raman Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 2000 SCC OnLine Raj 226, had ruled as under;
“(136). Similarly, in Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra , the Apex Court held that since it is impossible to adduce direct evidence of conspiracy, the offence can only be proved largely from the inference drawn from acts or illegal omissions committed by the conspirators in furtherance of a common design. Once such a conspiracy is proved, act of one conspirator becomes the act of the others. A co-conspirator, who joins subsequently and commits overt-acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, must also be held liable.”
Accordingly, if there is evidence that a political leader, organisation or any other person has gone beyond legitimate political advocacy and has, through speeches, press conferences, coordinated public campaigns or other overt acts, knowingly participated in a common design to shield persons accused of serious offences, to obstruct lawful investigation, or to secure impunity contrary to law, such conduct may constitute relevant circumstantial evidence from which the existence of a criminal conspiracy may be inferred.
