BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
Kannan @ Tamil Muthalvan - Petitioner
Vs.
The Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai - Respondent
W.P(MD)No.1446 of 2025
Decided On : 01-04-2025
(A) Police Act - Section 30(2) - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Writ Petition to quash rejection of permission for protest - Rejection based on public disturbance concerns deemed arbitrary and a violation of fundamental rights - Court emphasized the importance of democratic expression and the need for proper justification for denial of protest rights. (Paras 2, 5, 8)
(B) Natural Justice - Principles of natural justice must be adhered to in administrative decisions affecting fundamental rights - Denial of protest without alternative site allocation is arbitrary. (Paras 2, 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, President of an organization advocating for Scheduled Caste rights, sought permission to protest against government inaction regarding contaminated drinking water affecting his community. The police rejected the application citing public disturbance concerns.
Findings of Court:
The court found the rejection arbitrary and lacking justification, emphasizing the need for democratic expression.
Issues: The main issues were whether the rejection of the protest was justified and whether the principles of natural justice were violated.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the rejection of the protest was arbitrary, lacking proper justification, and emphasized the importance of democratic rights and natural justice.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
This Writ Petition has been filed to quash the impugned rejection order, dated 03.01.2025 in Na.Ka.No.01.Pudukai/2025 passed by the 2nd respondent and consequently direct the respondents herein to grant permission for conducting democratic protest and agitation on 01.02.2025 at 10.00 a.m., at Thilakar Thidal, Pudukottai.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a President of “Arivu Samookam” Organization and he has been doing various social activities fighting for fundamental rights and human rights for the deprived people, particularly to Scheduled Caste community of his town Checkkanurani, Thirumangalam Taluk. He further submitted that the 2nd respondent in violation of the principles of natural justice rejected the application of the petitioner for holding demonstration, for the reason that the place is a busy place near bus stand, hospital and other public buildings. If the objection is for the place then alternate site could have been allotted for protest by the 2nd respondent Police. On the other hand, rejecting the application of the petitioner in toto is nothing but denial of fundamental right. The demonstration of the petitioner is only to awake the authorities and Government for their inaction to address the grievance and sufferings of the affected people and not to create disturbance to the public peace and tranquillity as apprehended. The Speakers detail furnished and there is no cause of incitement of any kind of violence during protest. The Police cannot arbitrarily misuse their power to curb a democratic expression of protest and scuttle freedom of speech. The denial of the 2nd respondent is totally arbitrary, without justification. Further, the rejection order not served to the petitioner and it was served to one Mr.Vembai Chinnadurai, a Member of the Protesting Group. The learned counsel further submitted that the impugned rejection order refers to Section 30 (2) of Police Act said to be in force in Pudukottai Sub Division, further it is projected the place of protest is a public place with public movement comprising commercial buildings, hospital, bus stand and hence it would cause public disturbance. The place sought for by the petitioner is the place where all political parties and public spirited organizations conduct democratic protest. Since a democratic right of the petitioner attempted to be throttled and scuttled, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.
3.The learned State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is attempting to ignite the sensitive issue now commonly called as “Vengaivayal”. The issue is that on 24.12.2022, one Kanagaraj lodged a complaint that his daughter, aged about 6 years, started vomiting and suffered from fever and, she was taken to Primary Health Centre, Cauvery Nagar and thereafter to Pudukottai Government Hospital on 25.12.2022. The Doctor informed that due to contamination in the drinking water, she suffered health issues. The drinking water to the village is supplied through overhead tank of 10,000 litre, the petitioner's village is predominantly inhabited by the Scheduled Caste community people. On 26.12.2022, the water was in turbid condition, emanating foul smell. Muthukrishnan S/o.Karupaiya and Sudharsan, S/o.Baskar claimed to the top of the overhead tank, found faecal matter floating on the water. Due to drinking of contaminated water from the overhead tank, several villagers vomited and suffered headache and fever. On the complaint of the Kanagaraj on 26.12.2022, Vellanur Police registered FIR in Crime No.239 of 2022 for offence under Sections 277 & 328 IPC r/w 3(1)(b), 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 . Initially, the Jurisdictional Police conducted investigation, collected the mobile phone of the suspects and collected turbid water and faecal matter sent to the forensic examination. In the meanwhil
The rejection of a protest permit based on public disturbance concerns was deemed arbitrary, violating fundamental rights and principles of natural justice.
The fundamental right to protest cannot be denied without sufficient justification; demonstrators must ensure no obstruction to business operations.
Police cannot register FIR under Section 188 IPC without court complaint; peaceful protests raising slogans protected as fundamental right.
Peaceful protests are protected under Article 19; arbitrary denial of permission invalid, alternatives must be provided.
Peaceful protest without blocking traffic or prohibitory orders cannot justify FIR; fundamental right upheld, quashing invalid police FIR.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to balance the fundamental right to freedom of speech with the State's power to regulate agitational rights, and the limitations on the....
Peaceful protests on genuine grievances like water scarcity cannot sustain FIRs under IPC Sections 145, 188, 341 without public complaints or prohibitory orders.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.