Madras High Court | Railway Authorities Cannot Deboard Valid Ticket Holders for Protest Travel | Removal Permitted Only Under Railways Act
Safiya Malik
The Madras High Court at Madurai, Single Bench of Justice B. Pugalendhi recently held that railway authorities cannot de-board a passenger holding a valid ticket merely because the travel was undertaken for the purpose of protest. The Court observed that under the Railways Act, 1989, removal from a train is permitted only in limited cases such as travelling without a ticket, carrying an infectious disease, or occupying unauthorised parts of the train. It further clarified that de-boarding on any other ground would constitute an offence, exposing officials concerned to legal action.
The petitioner, P. Ayyakannu, President of an organisation formed for the welfare of farmers and promotion of river water linkage, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He sought a mandamus forbearing the respondents from interfering with his free movement and that of his members to New Delhi. The petitioner stated that despite holding valid train tickets, he and his members were deboarded on multiple occasions. He cited an incident in September 2024 when they were deboarded at Chengalpattu Railway Station en route from Trichy Junction to New Delhi, and another instance in Madhya Pradesh. He contended these actions were deliberate attempts to obstruct his peaceful demonstrations in New Delhi.
The petitioner recalled that in 2015 and 2016, he was similarly prevented from travelling, leading him to file writ petitions in both of which were allowed affirming his Article 19 rights. Despite those orders, he alleged that the obstructions continued. The petitioner outlined his history of public protests, including a 141-day demonstration at Jandar Mandir, New Delhi; a 100-day march from Kanyakumari to Chennai in 2018; and a farmers’ rally at Parliament Street, New Delhi, on 20 November 2017. He also referred to his petition before the Supreme Court in WP(Civil).No.273 of 2025, dismissed on 22 April 2025 with liberty to approach the appropriate High Court.
The Commissioner of Police, Trichy, filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner often conducts protests without permission or in violation of conditions. It alleged that he instigates members to use provocative methods, such as wearing masks of the Prime Minister, endangering senior citizens through fasts, appearing half-naked in public, or using skulls and bones as garlands. The counter stated that 73 cases had been registered against him. The authorities contended that while free movement under Article 19 exists, it is subject to reasonable restrictions necessary for law and order. They submitted that the petitioner habitually violated conditions and created nuisance, citing earlier orders in WP.No.33758 of 2013 (Naam Tamilar Katchi v. Superintendent of Police, Namakkal and Others), where the Court recognised law enforcement as the best judge of situations.
Justice Pugalendhi recorded that the petitioner had failed to furnish specific dates of alleged deboarding in September 2024. The Court noted that although the petitioner and his family members are Advocates, no legal action was taken at the relevant time. “On such vague averments, it is difficult for this Court to issue a general mandamus.”
The Court recalled an incident from history: “Mahatma Gandhi himself was once deboarded from a train despite holding a valid ticket. That incident became the turning point which inspired a movement, ultimately securing freedom for this nation. It is to ensure such freedom, our Constitution now guarantees fundamental rights.” It observed that the right to move freely, to assemble peacefully, and to voice grievances under Articles 19(1)(a), (b), and (d) are core democratic rights.
Quoting from the Supreme Court’s judgment in Anita Thakur v. Government of Jammu and Kashmir (2016) 15 SCC 525, the Court recorded: “An unarmed, peaceful protest procession in the land of ‘salt satyagraha’, fast-unto-death and ‘do or die’, is no jural anathema. A distinguishing feature of any democracy is the space offered for legitimate dissent. One cherished aspect of Indian political life is the tradition of expressing grievances through peaceful protest. Organised, non-violent protest marches were a key weapon in the struggle for independence, and the right to peaceful protest is recognised as a fundamental right in the Constitution.”
It stated: “Sections 55, 56, and 156 empower Railway authorities to deboard persons only in limited circumstances, viz., travelling without a ticket, suffering from infectious disease, or travelling in unauthorised parts of the train. None of these provisions permits deboarding of a passenger holding a valid ticket merely because he intends to protest. If such deboarding occurs, it would amount to an offence for which action must be taken against the concerned officials.”
“The petitioner’s methods of agitation, including climbing cellphone towers, endangering lives of senior citizens, or using skulls and bones in public protests, are not compatible with lawful protest. The law requires prior permission before conducting demonstrations, and when such permission is granted, conditions must be respected.”
“Accordingly, while reiterating that the petitioner’s right to free movement and peaceful protest is guaranteed under the Constitution, this Court also holds that such rights are subject to reasonable restrictions. The petitioner is bound to obtain prior permission and conduct protests in accordance with law. The authorities, on their part, are not entitled to arbitrarily prevent him from travelling when he holds valid tickets. If any such obstruction occurs, the petitioner has liberty to initiate appropriate legal proceedings against the concerned officials in the manner known to law.”
The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. S. Muthukrishnan, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. K. Govindarajan, Deputy Solicitor General of India; Mr. F. Deepak, Special Government Pleader; Mr. E. Antony Sahaya Prabhakar, Additional Public Prosecutor
Case Title: P. Ayyakannu v. Union of India & Others
Case Number: WP(MD)No.13455 of 2025
Bench: Justice B. Pugalendhi
