Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Madras, at Madurai, Single Bench of Justice B. Pugalendhi has upheld the denial of permission by the police to conduct a political demonstration, affirming that the "right to protest is not a license to cause inconvenience to the public". The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the impugned police order, while directing the petitioner political party to file a fresh application for protest and instructed the police to decide upon it within twenty-four hours.

The writ petition was filed by the State Coordinator of a political party seeking to quash the order dated 06.07.2025 issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Manamadurai Sub-Division, Sivagangai District. The petitioner requested permission to conduct a protest on 08.07.2025 at Thiruppuvanam Santhai Thidal, between 2 p.m. and 7 p.m., to condemn the alleged custodial death of one Ajith Kumar.

Also Read: Unregistered Sale Deeds Based On Revoked Power Of Attorney Cannot Confer Title | Supreme Court Restores Suit Over Disputed Land Transfer

According to the petitioner, a previous demonstration had been conducted at the same venue on 03.07.2025 without the participation of the party leader. The petitioner submitted that the participation of the leader Mr. Seeman was not permitted by the respondent police on that day due to the prevailing local situation. As a result, the party had undertaken to conduct another protest on a different date with their leader's presence.

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, through order Na.Ka.No.39/Camp/DSP/Mana/2025 dated 06.07.2025, rejected the permission request citing multiple grounds:

1. A prior protest by the same party had been held at the same location on 03.07.2025, and repeated protests within short intervals were deemed inadvisable.

2. A major religious festival, the temple car (Therottam) festival of Sri Santhanayaki Ambal Sametha Swarnamoortheeswarar Swamy Temple in Melanettur, Devakottai Taluk, was scheduled on 08.07.2025, requiring substantial police deployment.

3. The proximity of the proposed protest site to government offices, schools, hospitals, and commercial establishments raised concerns about public inconvenience and disruption of essential services.

4. The weekly market (Santhai) at Thiruppuvanam on 08.07.2025 would witness high footfall, and the protest was likely to result in vehicular chaos and disruption to commerce.

5. The Santhai Thidal site had limited capacity (200-300 persons), lacked designated parking and crowd management infrastructure, and the petitioner had not disclosed expected turnout or vehicles involved.

6. The possibility of law-and-order disturbances and damage to public property, given the overall situation.

The petitioner contended that while permission was granted for other political parties to protest on the same issue, the denial to his party was discriminatory. The writ petition was thus moved as an urgent lunch motion on 07.07.2025.

Upon preliminary hearing, this Court directed listing the matter for hearing on the same day at 2:30 p.m. During the hearing, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor stated that no reference to the party leader's participation was found in the original request dated 30.06.2025. The counter affidavit submitted by the respondent police denied the averments made in the petitioner's affidavit regarding restrictions on the leader's participation.

The Court noted that a similar request was submitted by the petitioner in his capacity as State Organiser on 03.07.2025, and the new request for 08.07.2025 was a reiteration to hold a protest on the same issue and at the same place.

Furthermore, the petitioner also made a subsequent request to conduct the protest on 09.07.2025, which was also denied by the police on 08.07.2025 citing pendency of the present writ petition.

The Court, after considering rival submissions and reviewing records, made the following observations:

"The right to freedom of expression and protest is guaranteed under the Constitution of India. However, this right conferred under Article 19(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) and (3) of the Constitution."

"The political parties are having certain responsibilities towards general public, who would be disturbed pursuant to their protests. The protests, if any conducted would certainly affect the right of free movement of common public and it would disturb the people in and around the place of protests."

The Court drew upon precedent to support its reasoning:

In Himat Lal K. Shah vs Commissioner Of Police, Ahmedabad (1973 AIR 87): "It is doubtless true that the State or local authority can regulate its property in order to serve its public purposes."

In Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sanghatan vs. Union Of India (AIR 2018 SC 3476): "Holding of demonstrations in the way it has been happening is causing serious discomfort and harassment to the residents."

In Bimal Gurung vs Union Of India (AIR 2018 SC 1459): "Demonstrations which create public disturbances or operate as nuisances, or create or manifestly threaten some tangible public or private mischief, are not covered by protection under Article 19(1)."

In Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police & Ors. ((2020) 10 SCC 439): "Democracy and dissent go hand in hand, but then the demonstrations expressing dissent have to be in designated places alone."

In The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs P.Ayyakannu (W.A. Nos. 2004 & 2006 of 2006): "The right to protest ends when the other person's right to free movement and the right to not to listen to starts."

The Court found that while the right to protest exists, it is not absolute and must not infringe upon the rights of others. "The sacrosanct right of protest cannot be used in a cavalier manner to cause persistent irritation or disharmony to the general public."

"No person can claim that he should be allowed to protest repeatedly at the same place without restrictions."

Addressing the police stated concern that prior protests included provocative and indecent speech, the Court recorded: "On 03.07.2025 some of the speakers participated in the protest conducted by the petitioner political party had wantonly used filthy language and mentioned communal names and had tried to provoke a particular community... referred to the complainant (Nikita) in such terms that demean the dignity of women in general."

"It is the responsibility of the law enforcing authority to implement the law in its true spirit."

Also Read: Madras High Court Sentences Advocate To 4 Months Imprisonment For Disobeying Judicial Orders | Lawyer Breached Undertaking By Refusing To Vacate Rented Office | Court Orders Disciplinary Action Saying Bar Member’s Defiance Erodes Public Faith

The Court ultimately upheld the police’s rejection order dated 06.07.2025, stating:

"This Court cannot find fault with the reasons assigned by the respondent police for rejecting the request of the petitioner for conducting the protest in the same place on 08.07.2025 that they are expected to provide police protection to the Kanda Devi temple car festival."

However, the Court provided relief to the petitioner, permitting a fresh request: "It is open to the petitioner to submit a fresh application to the respondent police and on receipt of such application, the respondent police shall consider the same and take a decision within a period of twenty-four hours."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Mr. M. Dinesh Hari Sudarsan, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. E. Antony Sahaya Prabhakar, Additional Public Prosecutor

Case Title: J. Eswaran vs. The State of Tamil Nadu & Others

Case Number: W.P.Crl.(MD)No.448 of 2025

Bench: Justice B. Pugalendhi