The right to protest is constitutional but must be balanced against public order and administrative feasibility; absolute insistence on location can be unreasonable.

ORDER :

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Preface:

This writ petition presents an unusual prayer, where the petitioner, appearing as party-in-person, seeks to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge an order  of the 3rd respondent police refusing permission to conduct a daily “Ahimsa Path” from 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon, purportedly until the end of the “World War”.

2. The petitioner styles his proposed activity as a peaceful protest intended to advance the cause of non-violence and world peace. According to him, such protest is an exercise of his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and his right to assemble peacefully without arms. The grievance projected in the writ petition is that the 3^rd respondent, by the impugned proceedings dated 09.03.2026, denied him permission to conduct such protest at the place chosen by him.

3. Though the prayer, on its face, is couched in the language of constitutional liberty, the substance of the matter requires this Court to examine whether the rejection order is arbitrary or unreasonable and whether the petitioner can insist upon conducting an indefinite daily protest at a location of his unilateral choice, regardless of public inconvenience, traffic regulation, and administrative feasibility.

Case of the petitioner:

4. The petitioner claims to be the Union Secretary of “Pathu Roobai Iyakkam”, engaged in social and Right to Information activities. It is his case that he intends to conduct an “Ahimsa Path” every day in a peaceful manner, so as to spread a message against war and in favour of non-violence.

5. The petitioner submitted an application before the jurisdictional police seeking permission to conduct the said programme every day from 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon. However, the 3rd respondent, by proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 05/ThoKa.Nee/Tha.Ma/2026 dated 09.03.2026, rejected the request.

6. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. The petitioner would contend that the impugned rejection amounts to an unconstitutional restriction on his fundamental right to protest peacefully and that the respondents ought to have facilitated the same instead of rejecting it.

Grounds for quash:

7. The challenge to the impugned proceedings is essentially founded on the following grounds:

i. The petitioner claims that peaceful protest is a facet of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India.

ii. According to him, the proposed “Ahimsa Path” is non-violent, symbolic, and intended only to promote public awareness on the cause of peace.

iii. The petitioner would further assert that the rejection order is mechanical in nature and does not adequately appreciate the constitutional significance of peaceful dissent.

iv. It is also his contention that the denial of permission at the place chosen by him effectively frustrates the object of the programme and amounts to an unreasonable curtailment of his right.

Submissions of the petitioner:

8. The petitioner, who appeared in person, submitted that he is entitled to conduct a peaceful protest and that the State authorities cannot defeat such right merely on vague or general considerations. He would submit that his proposed programme is neither violent nor disruptive in intent and that it is meant only to convey a moral and humanitarian message.

9. He would further contend that in a democratic polity, the right to assemble and protest peacefully forms part of the basic civic freedoms available to every citizen. According to him, the rejection of permission by the 3rd respondent is contrary to