Bombay HC Intervenes Suo Motu, Orders End to Highway Protest Citing Violation of Public's Fundamental Rights

Nagpur, India – In a significant assertion of judicial oversight to protect citizen liberties, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court on Wednesday took suo motu cognizance of a farmers' protest that had brought a major national highway to a standstill. Presiding over a vacation court, single-judge Justice Rajnish Vyas issued a decisive order directing former MLA Omprakash alias Bachchu Kadu and his supporters to immediately vacate National Highway 44 (Wardha Road), underscoring that the right to protest cannot infringe upon the fundamental right of citizens to free movement.

The Court's intervention addresses the growing legal and social tension between the constitutional right to assemble and protest and the public's right to use public infrastructure without hindrance. The order provides a crucial legal perspective on the limits of dissent, particularly when it leads to widespread public disruption.

---

The Catalyst for Judicial Action

The Court initiated the suo motu Public Interest Litigation (PIL) based on news reports in national and local dailies that detailed the severe "suffering and disturbance" caused by the ongoing agitation. The reports highlighted a traffic jam stretching up to 20 kilometers, which paralyzed not only private and commercial transport but also critical emergency services, including ambulances and police vehicles.

In his order, Justice Vyas took judicial notice of the strategic importance of the blocked highway. "On the said National Highway not only lies Nagpur Airport but for approaching National Cancer Institute, the National Highway is required to be used," he noted. The court also pointed out that the highway serves as a vital artery connecting to the Samruddhi Mahamarg and is flanked by numerous essential institutions like Suretech Hospital and several schools, all of which were adversely affected by the blockade.

The genesis of the protest was a single-day permission granted by the Nagpur City Police for October 28. However, the agitation, led by Kadu, continued well beyond this permitted timeframe, escalating the public inconvenience and prompting the High Court's intervention.

---

Balancing Fundamental Rights: A Constitutional Tightrope

The core of Justice Vyas's order revolves around the delicate balance between two fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India: the right to protest, an extension of the freedom of speech and assembly under Article 19, and the right to move freely throughout the territory of India under Article 19(1)(d).

The Court firmly established that while the right to protest is a cornerstone of democracy, it is not absolute. "Role of judiciary in such situation is required to be of proactive nature, it being protector of fundamental rights guaranteed under our Constitution," the order stated. "At the same time right of protestors can also not be ignored. Fact remains that public road, more particularly, a National Highway is blocked by the protestors which certainly violates fundamental right of the citizens to move freely throughout territory of India."

This reasoning echoes established jurisprudence, including Supreme Court precedents, which have consistently held that public ways and spaces cannot be occupied indefinitely for protests. Justice Vyas articulated this principle clearly: "Suffice it to say that streets and public parks exist primarily for the other purposes and the social interest promoted by untrammelled exercise of freedom of utterance and assembly in public street must yield to social interest which prohibition and regulation or speech are designed to protect."

By framing the issue as a direct conflict between competing fundamental rights, the Court positioned its intervention not as a suppression of dissent, but as a necessary action to restore the rights of the larger public that were being violated.

---

The Court's Directives and Enforcement Mechanism

The High Court's order was unequivocal and left no room for ambiguity. It directed Bachchu Kadu and the protestors to "forthwith clear the protest site peacefully."

Recognizing the potential for non-compliance, the court established a clear enforcement protocol. "If Mr Omprakash alias Bachchu Kadu and the protestors fail to remove themselves from the streets and other public places where protest is going on, police authorities including Commissioner of Police...Superintendent of Police...as well as Additional Director General of Police, Highway Traffic and all other authorities are directed to take all necessary steps for removal of protestors and restoring flow of traffic to normalcy," the order mandated.

This directive places the onus squarely on law enforcement agencies to implement the court's order strictly and lawfully. To ensure accountability, the court has demanded a compliance report from the authorities by Thursday morning.

In a move reflecting judicial sensitivity, Justice Vyas also included a specific directive concerning vulnerable individuals among the protestors. The court ordered that "if some specially abled persons, senior citizens, women, children etc. are protesting for their cause, they shall be evicted or removed from the site, with all dignity." This instruction aims to balance the enforcement of the law with humanitarian considerations.

---

Legal Implications and Precedential Value

This suo motu action by the Bombay High Court serves as a powerful reminder of the judiciary's role as a parens patriae and its capacity for proactive intervention when executive inaction or public disorder infringes upon citizens' rights.

1. Reinforcing Limits on Protests: The order strengthens the legal precedent that protests, while a legitimate democratic tool, cannot lead to the indefinite occupation of public infrastructure, especially critical transport arteries. It provides district administrations and police forces with clear judicial backing to act against protests that cause disproportionate public hardship.

2. Affirmation of Suo Motu Powers: The case is a classic example of the judiciary utilizing its suo motu powers based on media reports to address a pressing public grievance. This highlights the importance of a free press in bringing such issues to the attention of the courts and the judiciary's willingness to act as a guardian of the Constitution without waiting for a formal petition.

3. Guidance for Future Agitations: For organizers of protests and agitations, this order sends a clear message. While the right to voice dissent is protected, the methods employed must not violate the fundamental rights of other citizens. It implicitly encourages protestors to seek designated areas for agitation that do not cripple public life.

The case, titled Court On Its Own Motion vs Omprakash alias Bachchu Kadu (Suo Motu PIL 9 of 2025) , will be closely watched as a contemporary application of constitutional principles to the challenges of public demonstrations in modern India. It reinforces the legal axiom that rights come with responsibilities, and the exercise of one individual's or group's rights cannot be at the expense of the entire community's fundamental freedoms.