The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right to protest is not absolute and must be exercised in a manner that does not infringe upon the fundamental rights of others.

DIPAK MISRA, J. :- The petitioner, a septuagenarian, as pro bono publico has preferred this writ petition on the substratum that he is a retired Professor and has been actively involved in social services for past several years and also is the President of Nagrik Upbhogta Sanrakshan Manch, Jabalpur which has been taking up issues on behalf of the general public.

2. It is asseverated in the petition that 'Chakkajam' is a method of protest which is adopted by many a political party for various and manifold issues. Because of the aforesaid remonstrance, the major roads of the city especially the crossings are completely blocked for hours together and the demonstrations held by the protestants make life standstill and everything comes to stillstand. It is asserted in the petition that patients who are in critical condition and require immediate medical treatment are not permitted to approach hospitals, school and college going are facing immense difficulty and are not in a position to attend their schools and colleges and to get back to their homes. In essentiality, it is urged that the protestation by way of 'Chakkajam' brings life to complete stillness and affects and impinges upon the fundamental rights of the citizens to move freely on the roads. It is contended that no individual, group or political party has the unfettered and unbridled right to constrict or restrict or bulldoze such fundamental rights of a citizen. The State Government has the sacrosanct obligation to make every possible endeavour to prohibit such entrenchment and encroachment upon the fundamental rights of the citizens. It is set forth that 'Chakkajam' has become so rampant in Madhya Pradesh that in Jabalpur district alone there have been 36 Chakkajam' in the month of September, 2007. Despite representations being submitted to the authorities who have the duty to maintain law and order, no steps have been taken and the prayer has fallen in deaf ears. It is averred that the political parties have been continuously holding 'Chakkajam' across the length and breadth of State of Madhya Pradesh having no regard for massive public inconvenience caused to the citizens at large. It is the specific case of the petitioner that there is newspaper report dated 3-12-2007, Annexure-P3, that there will be 'Chakkajam' between 10.00 a.m. to 12 noon throughout the State. It is put forth that if 'Chakkajam' are permitted to be held then it would cause unprecedented inconvenience to the public at large in the entire State and it will send a message that anyone is free to take law unto their own hands and arrest the free movements of the citizens. It is urged that the persons from every walk of like would suffer whether they are students, workers, patients, professionals, etc. In this background a prayer has been made to declare all 'Chakkajams' being organized by various political parties in the State or any other protesting individuals or groups are completely illegal and the State Government should be commanded to prohibit such 'Chakkajam'.

3. We have heard Mr. Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Deepak Awasthy, learned Government Advocate for the respondents on the question of grant of interim relief. Mr. Anshuman Singh, learned counsel has commended us to the decisions rendered in Communist Party of India (M) v. Bharat Kumar (1998) 1 SCC 201 : (AIR 1998 SC 184), James Martin v. State of Kerala, 2003 (10) JT (SC) 371 and T. K. Rangarajan v. Government of T. N., (2003) 6 SCC 581 : (AIR 2003 SC 3032).

4. In Bharat Kumar, (AIR 1998 SC 184) (supra) a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in paragraph 3 expressed the opinion as under :-

"3. On a perusal of the impugned judgment of the High Court, referring to which learned counsel for the appellant pointed out certain portions, particularly in paras 13 and 18 including the operative part in support of their submissions, we find that the judgment does not call for any interference. We are satisfied that