A case registered against 15 participants in the ongoing Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) protest in Pune has intensified a dispute between student representatives, police and NCP (Sharadchandra Pawar) MLA Rohit Pawar over protest permissions, alleged traffic obstruction and the use of criminal charges against demonstrators.
Vishrambaug police registered the case in connection with a gathering held outside Indulal Complex on Shastri Road in Navi Peth on October 1. The protest has continued for nine days at S M Joshi Bridge, with demonstrators demanding the resignation of MPSC chairman Vivek Bhimanwar. Pawar, who has been leading the agitation, has not been named in the FIR.
According to the police complaint, the protesters assembled without fresh permission while prohibitory orders were in force. The complaint alleges that the gathering obstructed traffic on a public road, caused congestion and inconvenienced commuters. It further alleges that some protesters continued sitting on the road despite repeated instructions from police officers to clear the way and failed to disperse.
The case has been registered under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Maharashtra Police Act. Student representatives named in the case include Pramod Patil, Akshay Kamble and Aniket Deshmane.
The dispute partly centres on how permission for the agitation was handled. The police complaint states that student representatives approached the Pune Police Commissioner’s office on September 25 seeking permission for a protest scheduled for October 2. Permission was granted on September 26, subject to conditions and for a proposed location.
The complaint states that a student delegation met Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis in Mumbai on September 30. After discussions, the representatives informed police in writing that the October 2 protest had been put on hold. Police subsequently informed them that the earlier permission had been cancelled. The protesters nevertheless assembled outside Indulal Complex on October 1, according to the police account.
Pawar has criticised the police action, calling the cases against the students unjustified. He alleged that some people named in the FIR were not present at the protest site and said the document contained errors in the identification and description of individuals. He also alleged that the police were acting under political pressure and had initially permitted the agitation before taking action against the protesters.
Pawar said a team of lawyers would be formed to provide legal assistance to the students. He asserted that the agitation would continue despite the FIR or any possible arrests, while urging protesters to remain peaceful. He also said three fresh applications had been submitted seeking permission for the agitation.
Lawyer Asim Sarode separately alleged that students who were not present had been wrongly named and that the charges were intended to weaken the movement. He disputed allegations concerning the collection or use of stones during the protest, saying no student had picked up stones. Sarode said the offences invoked were bailable and that legal remedies, including seeking bail where necessary, would be available.
The police allegations and the claims made by Pawar and Sarode remain contested. The FIR records allegations but does not establish the guilt of those named. The matter is expected to proceed through legal channels, while the protesters have said they will continue the agitation and pursue the issue in court.
