Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Anti-Trafficking Activists, Slams Abuse of Law and Vindictive Action

The judgment, authored by Justice Joymalya Bagchi and concurred by Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, involved appellants Umashankar Yadav and a fellow activist, who had been facing trial since 2014 for their role in a rescue operation aimed at liberating bonded and child labourers from a brick kiln in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh.

Background of the Case:

The saga began when the first appellant, a project coordinator at Guria—an NGO renowned for its anti-trafficking efforts—submitted a complaint to the District Magistrate of Varanasi in June 2014. He reported the use of bonded child labour at a local brick kiln and sought immediate intervention.

Acting on the complaint, the Deputy District Magistrate directed the Assistant Labour Commissioner to take necessary steps. On June 6, 2014, a team consisting of Labour Enforcement Officers, Anti-Human Trafficking Force (AHTF) personnel, and police officials visited the site. The appellants accompanied them.

While the appellants claimed that some children and labourers were found at the site and brought to the police station, a conflicting version emerged from Raja Ram Dubey (the informant and a Labour Officer). He alleged that the appellants forcibly removed the workers before their statements could be recorded, amounting to obstruction of official duties. Based on this, an FIR was filed under Sections 186, 353, and 363 IPC (with Section 363 later dropped).

High Court’s Decision and Supreme Court’s Intervention:

The appellants had approached the High Court seeking quashing of the chargesheet. However, the High Court refused, citing that the matter involved disputed facts which could not be decided under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), and that the appellants had other remedies available before the trial court.

The Supreme Court strongly disagreed with this perfunctory approach. It held that the High Court failed in its judicial duty to assess whether the allegations even constituted an offence. "Summoning of an accused is a serious matter which affects liberty and dignity of the individual concerned," the judgment observed, reiterating that the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised to prevent misuse of the court’s process and protect individuals from unnecessary harassment.

Findings of the Court:

The apex court thoroughly reviewed the factual matrix and held that even if the allegations were taken at face value, the essential ingredients of Sections 186 and 353 IPC were not met.

Section 186 IPC punishes obstruction of a public servant in the discharge of public functions, requiring intentional and voluntary obstruction. Section 353 involves the use of assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from duty. The Court clarified that mere removal of labourers from the site did not amount to use of criminal force or even obstruction with the requisite mens rea (guilty mind).

Statements of the labourers themselves confirmed that no force was used and they were released quickly. The Court noted a genuine difference of opinion on how the rescue operation should have been carried out—whether interrogation should happen at the site or at a neutral location like a police station.

The Court observed:

“Such factual position denudes their action of the requisite mens rea, i.e. intention to obstruct official duty. When the profile of the allegations renders existence of mens rea patently absurd or inherently improbable, such prosecution is liable to be quashed as an abuse of process of law.”

Malicious Prosecution and Legal Violations:

Adding to the gravity of the situation, the Court found indications of personal vendetta. A report from the Additional Labour Commissioner to the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights contained baseless allegations that the appellants bribed labourers to fabricate evidence. The Court termed these insinuations “wholly unfounded” and “hostile,” affirming that the FIR appeared to be filed with malice.

Even if Section 186 IPC were assumed applicable, the prosecution still suffered from procedural infirmities:

No Prior Sanction under Section 155(2) CrPC: Since Section 186 is a non-cognizable offence, prior permission from the Magistrate was mandatory to register an FIR. No such permission was obtained, making the registration and subsequent investigation illegal.

Violation of Section 195 CrPC: Cognizance under Section 186 IPC can only be taken on a complaint by the aggrieved public servant or their superior. Here, the chargesheet was filed by the police—not a compliant authority under the law.

Even the fallback argument—that the police report could be treated as a complaint under Section 2(d) CrPC—was rejected by the Court. The explanation to that section still required the complainant to be the aggrieved public servant, not a general police officer. Hence, the proceedings were vitiated.

A Strong Message from the Bench:

Through its detailed analysis, the Supreme Court sent a strong message against arbitrary and vindictive criminal prosecutions, particularly against social activists engaged in public interest work.

“Faced with the agony of a lame prosecution, it is of little solace to a litigant to be told that inherent powers are shut out,” the Court said, underlining that the High Court’s powers under Section 482 CrPC should not be rendered meaningless.

In quashing the proceedings, the Supreme Court restored the liberty and dignity of the appellants, who had suffered for years despite acting in furtherance of a legitimate rescue operation backed by governmental directions.

Conclusion:

This decision stands as a vital precedent for safeguarding the rights of civil society actors and curbing misuse of the criminal justice system. It reaffirms that judicial powers must not be exercised mechanically, and that courts must remain vigilant against misuse of legal provisions to suppress legitimate activism.

The appeal was allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of.