Barely hours before the Puthuppally byelection on Tuesday, the State government moved to drop the unlawful assembly case registered against at least 1,000 Nair Service Society (NSS) members in Thiruvananthapuram for taking out a prayer procession on August 2 to protest Speaker A.N. Shamseer’s remark about the difference between science and religion.
CPI(M) leader K. Anilkumar told television channels in Kottayam that imputing any political or electoral motive in the decision was wrong.
The police had registered the case as part of standard legal procedure. The government had said earlier that it would seek a legal opinion about the case to verify its constitutionality, Mr. Anil claimed.
The Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party were yet to comment on the development. They had earlier demanded that the police withdraw the August 2 case and those registered against hundreds, including women and children, who participated in the 2018 Sabarimala agitation.
Moreover, the NSS had taken a bleak view of Mr. Shamseer’s remark and demanded an apology. Later, it forsook the path of street agitation for a silent campaign to “defend the faith”. Moreover, it seemed not lost on the ruling Left Democratic Front that iNSS had a solid social presence in Puthuppally.
R. Manu, the Assistant Public Prosecutor of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-3, Thiruvananthapuram, told the police that the August 2 prayer march was a “fit case to drop further action”. Such a move was to maintain “communal harmony, peace in society and other social reasons”.
Mr. Manu also opined that prosecuting the case against NSS marchers would be tantamount to abusing the process under the law.
The suspects in the case included NSS vice president Sangeeth Kumar, among others.
The NSS had denounced the case against its members and moved the Kerala High Court to quash the FIR registered by the Cantonment police. The NSS petition was pending in the HC.
According to the legal opinion, the procession was related to a religious practice associated with the Hindu religion and protected right under Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India.
The procession was “not restricted, regulated, or banned on the grounds of public order, morality, or health.” The opinion noted that it also fell within the Constitutional right to assemble peacefully without arms.
The procession did not attract penal liabilities for unlawful assembly and rioting offences.
The police could not identify or interrogate any aggrieved pedestrians or vehicle users, if at all, on the blockage on the pathway due to the procession.
The possibility of finding such affected parties, if any, was too remote. No violence or damage were reported. The prosecutor opined that any slight obstruction caused to the public due to the procession was a trifling affair.
Mr. Manu also factored in the cost of adjudication, the time required for prosecution, the absence of any harm and violence, and the intention of people gathered to take out a peaceful protest in his argument.
