Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 26411
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
State co-ordinator of a political party – Appellant
Versus
2nd respondent – Respondent
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents:
The constitutional right to protest is subject to reasonable restrictions by the State to safeguard public order, safety, and the rights of the general public, including limitations on repeated protests at the same location within a short time frame.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 19(1)(a) and (b) - Right to freedom of expression and protest - Subject to reasonable restrictions under Articles 19(2) and 19(3). (Paras 12, 16)
(B) Reasonable Restrictions on Protests - State's authority to regulate protests to ensure public order, safety, and convenience - Right to protest limited by rights of general public to peace, free movement, and noise-free environment - Repeated protests at same location within short intervals not permissible. (Paras 13-17, 18)
(C) Duty of Police - Obligation to consider applications for protests, balance rights of protesters and public safety - Police rejection of protest permits justified based on public order, festival events, market day, and logistical capacity of site. (Paras 9, 10, 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner political party sought permission to hold a protest on 08.07.2025 at a specified public place regarding a custodial death, after conducting a protest on 03.07.2025. The police rejected the request citing previous protest, coinciding local temple festival, weekly market, limited venue capacity, and public order concerns. The petitioner alleged discrimination as other parties were granted protest permissions. (Paras 1-3, 9-11)
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the police order rejecting the protest on 08.07.2025, emphasizing the right to protest is qualified by reasonable restrictions aimed at preventing public inconvenience, disturbance, and ensuring safety. The court noted multiple applicable restrictions and held the rejection lawful and justified. The petitioner may submit a fresh request for protest with police to decide within twenty-four hours. (Paras 12-18)
Issues: Whether refusal to grant permission for protest was legally justified given public order and safety concerns, and whether the petitioner was discriminated against compared to other political parties. (Paras 3, 9, 18)
Ratio Decidendi: The right to freedom of expression and protest under the Constitution is subject to reasonable restrictions to protect public order, safety, and the rights of others. Repeated protests at the same place within a short span affect public rights and can be regulated by the State. Police decisions balancing protest rights and public convenience, justified by relevant factors such as festivals, market days, and venue capacity, are lawful. Equal treatment and procedural fairness must be maintained. (Paras 12-18)
Result: Writ petition disposed of; petitioner's protest permission for 08.07.2025 refused upheld. Fresh application for protest may be considered by authorities within 24 hours. (Para 21)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background and context of protest permission refusal (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 10 , 11 , 19) |
| 2. contentions by petitioner and respondent police on protest timing and leader participation (Para 4 , 5 , 7) |
| 3. court's analysis of police reasoning and law enforcement responsibility (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 18 , 20) |
| 4. constitutional rights of protest versus reasonable restrictions (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 17) |
| 5. ratio decidendi on balancing protest rights and public order (Para 16) |
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed by the state co-ordinator of a political party, as against the order passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.39/Camp/Ka.Thu.Ka/Mana/2025, dated 06.07.2025 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner political party to conduct protest near Thiruppuvanam santhai Thidal on 08.07.2025 between 2pm and 7 pm.
2.By the impugned order, the 2nd respondent has rejected the request of this petitioner for conducting protest on the issue of death of one Ajith Kumar of Sivagangai district. The 2nd respondent has rejected the request of the petitioner on the following grounds:
“1.Prior Protest Held: The party had already conducted a protest at the same location on 03.07.2025. Repeating the same at short intervals was not advisable.
2.Coinciding Chariot Festival: On 08.07.2025, the temple car (Therottam) festival of Sri Santhanayaki Ambal Sametha Swarnamoortheeswarar Swamy Temple in Melanettur, Kandadevi, Devakottai Taluk is scheduled, attracting a large number of devotees, particularly women and children. Substantial police deployment from the Manamadurai sub-division, including Tiruppuvanam, was required for the peaceful conduct of the festival.
3. Proximity to Sensitive Areas: The proposed protest site is located close to government offices, schools, hospitals, and commercial establishments, raising concerns about traffic congestion, disruption of essential services, and public inconvenience.
4. Weekly Market Day: The requested protest date coincides with the weekly market (Santhai) at Thiruppuvanam, which witnesses significant footfall from nearby villages. Allowing the protest could lead to vehicular chaos, disrupt local commerce, and affect farmers and vendors who depend on this market.
5. Limited Capacity of the Site: The Santhai Thidal is situated on the Thiruppuvanam- Sivagangai State Highway And can only accommodate 200–300 persons. It lacks designated parking and crowd management infrastructure. The Petitioner has not indicated how many people or vehicles would assemble at the proposed protest site. A large gathering could pose safety risks, obstruct traffic, and endanger public property.
6. Law and Order Concern: Based on the overall situation, the authorities concluded that conducting the protest on the specified date would jeopardize public order, safety, and traffic flow, and could potentially result in disturbances or damage to public property.”
3.As against the impugned order dated 06.07.2025, this writ petition was moved on 07.07.2025 as urgent lunch motion that the respondent police have granted permission to other political parties for conducting protest on this issue, however, they have discriminated the petitioner political party alone. Considering this submission made on behalf of the petitioner, this Court on 07.07.2025 permitted the petitioner to move the writ petition as lunch motion and directed the Registry to list this writ petition on 07.07.2025 at 2.30pm. Accordingly this writ petition was listed.
4.When this writ petition was taken up for hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police by referring the impugned order pointed out that the very same political party conducted protest on 03.07.2025 at Thiruppuvanam Santhai Thidal and again they intended to conduct another protest on 08.07.2025.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner in response to the above submission, by referring the averment made in paragraph No.3 of
