Bombay High Court Orders Maratha Protestors to Vacate Azad Maidan, Warns of Contempt Action

MUMBAI – In a significant judicial intervention balancing the fundamental right to protest with the maintenance of public order, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday issued a stern directive to Maratha reservation activist Manoj Jarange and his supporters, ordering them to immediately vacate Mumbai's Azad Maidan. The court, hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), set a 3:00 PM deadline for compliance, threatening to initiate contempt of court proceedings and impose "exemplary costs" should the protestors fail to disperse.

The division bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Aarti Sathe, took a firm stance against the indefinite protest, which has seen over a lakh supporters converge on the city, causing widespread public inconvenience. The court's oral observations underscored the legal principle that the right to protest is not absolute and is contingent upon adherence to prescribed conditions.

The matter came before the court via a PIL filed by the AMY Foundation ( AMY Foundation v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. , PIL (L) No. 25656 of 2025), which highlighted the disruption caused to citizens by the large-scale gathering. Jarange has been on a "fast unto death" at the historic ground since August 29, demanding a 10 percent reservation for the Maratha community within the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category for government jobs and education.

---

Judicial Scrutiny and the Breach of Protest Conditions

The crux of the High Court's intervention lay in the protestors' apparent violation of the terms under which permission for the gathering was granted. The court was particularly concerned by the massive turnout, which far exceeded the initially permitted number of 5,000 participants.

"These protestors are violators (of Permission to protest) and thus cannot continue at the site any further," Acting Chief Justice Chandrashekhar orally remarked. "They cannot illegally occupy the site now... They must leave immediately else we will pass appropriate orders."

The bench directed pointed questions at Senior Advocate Satish Maneshinde, who appeared for Jarange and the protest organizers. The Acting Chief Justice demanded to know what specific steps Jarange had taken to control the crowd once it became clear that the numbers had swelled to over one lakh.

"No, we want to know now, what steps you took after you found that more than 1 lakh people have reached Mumbai," the bench insisted, dismissing assurances of future compliance.

In response, Maneshinde tendered an apology for the public inconvenience and informed the court that vehicles associated with the protestors had been moved to a designated area in Kharghar, Navi Mumbai. However, the court remained unsatisfied, demanding a detailed account of the crowd management measures taken, along with a list of all vehicles and their owners, to be submitted by the 3:00 PM deadline.

The court's observation that the "High Court cannot be under siege" further emphasized the judiciary's concern over the protest's impact on the city's functioning and the rule of law.

The Illegality of Continued Occupation

A key legal issue addressed by the court was the protestors' continued presence at Azad Maidan in anticipation of an extension of their protest permit. Maneshinde informed the court that while many protestors had left, Jarange remained at the site and had applied for an extension. The bench unequivocally rejected this justification.

"What is this? Just in anticipation that some order will be passed on your application, you cannot continue to sit there... We make it clear, you will have to leave immediately. This is illegal," the court stated emphatically.

This declaration serves as a crucial reminder for legal practitioners and activists: occupying a public space without a valid, subsisting permit constitutes an illegal act, regardless of any pending applications for extension. The court's warning that it would "ensure no one sits there" after 3:00 PM, even suggesting a personal visit to the site by a court representative or the judges themselves, highlighted the gravity of the order and the court's intent to see it enforced.

State's Accountability and Public Interest

The bench also turned its attention to the role of the state government. It directed Advocate General Dr. Birendra Saraf to furnish a detailed report on the measures taken by the State of Maharashtra to mitigate public inconvenience and manage the law and order situation arising from the protest. This direction reinforces the state's dual responsibility: to protect the right to peaceful assembly while simultaneously ensuring that such assemblies do not infringe upon the rights and daily lives of the wider citizenry.

Maneshinde had earlier raised concerns about the "poor facilities" for drinking water and parking provided by the state, claiming he had informed the authorities of the protest plans four months in advance. While the court did not directly engage with this claim, its query to the Advocate General indicates that the state's preparedness and response will be a subject of future judicial scrutiny in this PIL.

Legal Implications and Conclusion

The Bombay High Court's order in this matter is a potent illustration of the judicial tightrope walk between constitutional freedoms and public order. It establishes clear red lines for large-scale protests, particularly in densely populated urban centers.

For legal professionals, the proceedings offer several key takeaways:

1. Conditional Nature of Protest Rights: The right to protest is circumscribed by reasonable restrictions. Violating the conditions of a protest permit, such as caps on participant numbers, can render the entire assembly unlawful.
2. Judicial Intolerance for Illegal Occupation: Courts are unlikely to permit the continued occupation of public spaces based on pending applications or administrative delays. A valid permit is paramount.
3. Proactive Crowd Management is Essential: Organizers of protests will be held accountable for crowd control. The court's line of questioning suggests that a failure to take demonstrable steps to manage unexpectedly large turnouts can lead to adverse judicial orders.
4. The Potency of Contempt Powers: The threat of contempt of court and exemplary costs remains a powerful tool for the judiciary to enforce its orders and ensure compliance from all parties, including high-profile public figures.

As the 3:00 PM deadline passed, all eyes were on Azad Maidan to see if the protestors would comply with the High Court's unambiguous directive. The outcome of this standoff and the subsequent hearings in the PIL will continue to shape the legal landscape governing the right to protest in India.