The right to peaceful assembly is constitutionally guaranteed but subject to reasonable restrictions for public order.

ORDER

The petitioner, who is the District President of Hindu Makkal Katchi in Madurai, submitted a representation to the respondent Police on 13.12.2024, seeking permission to hold a protest on 05.01.2025 from 9:00 AM to 05:00 PM at the Palanganatham Roundabout. The purpose of the protest was to highlight the difficulties faced by the Brahmin community and to advocate for their rights. Despite the submission of this request, no permission was granted. Hence, the petitioner submitted a second representation on 21.12.2024, but permission was still not granted. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present Writ Petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the location requested for the protest is a commonly used site where protests by political parties periodically held. The petitioner, representing a social and political organization, sought the space to conduct a one-day fast and protest on 05.01.2025, from 09:00 AM to 05:00 PM.

3. The learned counsel further emphasized that the protest would be peaceful, with participation from like-minded individuals, political leaders, and social activists. The protest would include speeches, with necessary arrangements for shade, shelter, and microphones to address the participants and raise public awareness about the challenges faced by the Brahmin community.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that, after the Writ Petition was filed on 24.12.2024, the authorities belatedly issued a rejection order (C.No.144/AC/Camp/MC/2024) on 26.12.2024. The rejection cited concerns over public order, referencing past incidents involving the petitioner's organization, where provocative speeches were made during protests in Coimbatore and Chennai. These incidents allegedly led to criminal cases being registered, prompting the police to fear a repeat of such situations in Madurai. Further, concerns were raised regarding potential traffic disruptions and threats to public peace.

5. The second respondent filed a counter-affidavit, stating that the location chosen by the petitioner is densely populated, with several commercial buildings and heavy traffic. It is a major thoroughfare providing access to areas such as Tirupparankundram, Kalavasal Bypass, and Periyar Bus Stand. Therefore, a protest at this location could cause significant public disturbances and impede the daily movement of local residents.

6. The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner's organization had previously made provocative speeches during protests in Coimbatore and Chennai, which leading to filing of criminal cases in Crime Nos.513 of 2024 and 480 of 2024, respectively. The police expressed concerns that allowing the protest could lead to the incitement of hatred and unrest among the public, disturbing the peace of the locality. Therefore, the police rejected the request to prevent any negative impact on public order.

7. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the past incidents should not be used as a blanket justification for rejecting the current protest. The petitioner assured that the protest would be held peacefully and that the primary objective was to raise awareness about the challenges faced by the Brahmin community. The organizers also submitted an affidavit detailing the names of speakers who would participate in the protest and assured that they would maintain peace and harmony. The affidavit included clear instructions for the speakers to avoid causing any disharmony or inciting any violence.

8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor acknowledged that, in light of the affidavit submitted by the petitioner's organiz