The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR against a Staff Selection Commission (SSC) aspirant booked in connection with a protest at Ramlila Maidan, observing that mere participation in a demonstration does not establish a common intention to disobey police orders or obstruct police personnel. 

Justice Sanjeev Narula held that the petitioner could not be prosecuted without material showing that he knowingly participated in the alleged disobedience or shared a common intention to commit the offence. 

The case arose from a protest held at Ramlila Maidan in August 2025 by SSC aspirants over alleged irregularities in the conduct of the commission’s examination. 

According to the prosecution, some organisers refused to call off the demonstration after the permitted time had expired and instigated protesters to remain at the venue until their demands were met. 

The Delhi police subsequently registered an FIR alleging that some protesters had violated prohibitory orders issued under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita by continuing to occupy the ground. The police also alleged that some protesters pushed and scuffled with police personnel. 

The court, however, noted that neither the FIR nor the subsequent status report attributed any specific criminal act to the petitioner. His presence among the protesters, without material indicating a common intention to commit an offence, was insufficient to make out a case under Section 223(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which deals with disobedience of an order lawfully promulgated by a public servant. 

“The petitioner cannot be subjected to criminal proceedings merely on account of his presence amongst the protesters, in the absence of material indicating his knowing participation in the alleged disobedience or any common intention to commit the offence. The continuation of the proceedings against him, in these circumstances, would serve no worthwhile purpose,” the court said in its October 13 order. 

“Mere participation in the same demonstration does not, by itself, establish a common intention to disobey lawful directions or obstruct police personnel. The material on record does not disclose any basis for attributing such common intention to the petitioner,” it held. 

A two-judge Bench of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has upheld a single judge’s order quashing a Government Order (G.O.) issued in 2025, which cancelled the enhanced pension and family pension granted to retired State government doctors/medical officers and their families.

A Division Bench of Justices C.V. Karthikeyan and R. Sakthivel said the G.O. had been issued only under Rule 56 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. But, there should be a corresponding amendment to the Rules providing for deprivation of pension even after the pension had been sanctioned. “Though it could be stated that the government is waiving recovery, still reduction of pension is deprivation, and there can never be such deprivation except under the authority of law. There is no indication that Article 162 of the Constitution had been applied while passing the G.O.,” the court said.

The judges said the doctors had discharged their noble duty while in service. There was no complaint about lack of dedication during their period of service. They had retired in October, 2009. As on date, the youngest of them would be 76 years of age (taking 60 as the age of superannuation).

“They are thus a diminishing class. More than 50 of them had died. The family pension would only be 50% of the pension payable to a retired public servant. The financial commitment therefore decreases on death,” they said.

The judges held there cannot be a reduction of pension just to satiate the pleasure of Executive Officers deciding these issues. The plight of retired pensioners should be seen. “It is not a question of mere reduction of pension, but the hurt caused owing to degradation of the services rendered by them. Their services rendered to hundreds and thousands of patients should be recognised and should not be just washed away by citing other financial commitment by the government,” the judges said. They added, the government as a welfare State has a duty to recognise the loyal services rendered by a public servant. Deprivation of sanctioned pension could be resorted to only in the manner known to law.

“When the law does not authorise such deprivation, the government can never take away a part of the pension under the umbrella of a G.O, which has no statutory value. Though it is claimed to have been passed under Rule 56 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules there are no corresponding amendments to the Rules. There is no claim that Article 162 of the Constitution had been applied by the government,” the court said and dismissed the appeals filed by the State.