Madras HC Directs State To Clear Pavements And Roads Occupied By Protesters | Says Demonstrations Allowed Only In Authorised Places While Ensuring Right To Peaceful Protest
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Judicature at Madras Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan has disposed of a writ petition directing that pavements, pathways, and roads shall not be allowed to be blocked in the name of agitation. The Court further directed the concerned authorities to ensure compliance with the law by dispersing such gatherings where permission cannot be granted, while also safeguarding the right to peaceful protest. It was directed that any application for permission to conduct peaceful protests in permissible spaces be duly examined and appropriate orders passed in accordance with the law. The Court also recorded that the law enforcement agencies must exercise restraint while ensuring that public spaces not meant for protests are kept clear.
The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to implement a notice dated 07.08.2025 issued by the first respondent under Section 41(6) of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888. The petitioner sought action to disperse and clear agitators occupying the pavement and platform near Ripon Building, Chennai-600 003, whom the second respondent was representing.
The petitioner alleged that despite the issuance of the notice under the said provision, members of the second respondent’s union had continued to occupy the public pavement and platform in the course of an agitation. It was contended that such occupation caused serious inconvenience to the public and violated statutory provisions regulating the use of public ways.
The first respondent in the case was the Inspector of Police (Law & Order), G-2 Periamet Police Station, Chennai. The second respondent was Uzhaippor Urimai Iyakkam (Regn. No. 3077 CNI), represented by its President, with an address in Ambattur, Chennai.
The learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by the Additional Public Prosecutor, appeared for the first respondent and submitted that following the issuance of the notice dated 07.08.2025, the authorities would take appropriate action in accordance with law to ensure that pavements, pathways, and roads, where permission cannot be granted for agitations, are vacated.
The petitioner was represented by Senior Counsel, who reiterated the grievance that the continued occupation of the pavement and platform hindered public movement and necessitated immediate enforcement of the notice.
The second respondent was represented by counsel who did not dispute the right to protest peacefully but maintained that the agitation was part of their activities representing public interest.
The matter thus came before the Division Bench for consideration of whether the authorities should be directed to enforce the notice under Section 41(6) to clear the pavements and platforms and how the rights of protest could be balanced with the need to keep public spaces unobstructed.
The Bench recorded the grievance raised in the petition, namely, that despite the notice issued on 07.08.2025 in proceedings under Section 41 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888, the members of the second respondent union had occupied the pavement and platform in the name of agitation, causing serious inconvenience to the public.
The Court noted the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General that after issuance of the notice, the authorities shall take appropriate action in accordance with law to ensure that pavements, pathways, and roads, where such permission cannot be granted to raise agitation, are vacated.
The Court stated: "While the right of the second respondent to lodge peaceful protest cannot be denied, the second respondent is also obliged to ensure that the agitation is peaceful and without violating the laws of the land."
The Court further observed: "We hope and expect that in the name of agitation, the pavements/pathways/roads shall not be allowed to be blocked."
It was also recorded: "The authorities shall also ensure that if the second respondent applies for a space to peacefully organise protest in accordance with the provisions of law, the same shall be examined and appropriate order shall be passed so as to ensure that the second respondent may be allowed to exercise its right of peaceful protest and agitation and, at the same time, pavements/pathways/roads, where such protest is not permissible, are not allowed to be occupied."
The Court additionally stated: "We may further observe here that all restraint shall be exercised by the law enforcing agency while ensuring that the pavements/pathways/roads are not allowed for organising and staging protest."
The writ petition was disposed of with the direction that pavements, pathways, and roads shall not be allowed to be blocked in the name of agitation. The Court directed that the authorities take appropriate action, in accordance with law, to vacate such public spaces where permission cannot be granted for protests.
It was directed that if the second respondent applies for a space to peacefully organise a protest in accordance with the law, such application must be examined, and an appropriate order passed to allow the exercise of the right to peaceful protest without infringing on public pathways or roads.
The Court further directed that law enforcement agencies must exercise restraint while ensuring that pavements, pathways, and roads are not used for organising and staging protests.
The Court concluded the matter by disposing of the writ petition and closing the interim application, with no order as to costs.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. V. Raghavachari, Senior Counsel for Mr. S. Vinod
For the Respondents: Mr. J. Ravindran, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Muniyapparaj, Additional Public Prosecutor; Mr. R. Sankarasubbu for M/s. K. Bharathi, D. Parvendhan, and S. Vasantharaman
Case Title: D. Thenmozhi v. Inspector of Police
Case Number: W.P. No. 30607 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan
