The fundamental right to protest cannot be denied without sufficient justification; demonstrators must ensure no obstruction to business operations.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 11.03.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR K.Mudimannan ... Petitioner vs.

1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur Sub Division, Ariyalur.

2.The Inspector of Police, Talavai Police Station, Ariyalur District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned rejection order in Na.Ka.No.05/L2PS/ALR/2026 dated 18.02.2026 passed by the 2^nd respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent No.2 to grant permission to conduct the public demonstration on 26.02.2026 (Thursday) from 11.00 a.m to 01.00 p.m in front of MCL gate, Alathiyur, Senthurai Taluk, Ariyalur District or some other place which is prescribed by the Police Department.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Saravanan For Respondents : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER This Writ Petition has been filed to quash the impugned rejection order in Na.Ka.No.05/L2PS/ALR/2026 dated 18.02.2026 passed by the 2^nd respondent and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to grant permission to conduct public demonstration on 26.02.2026 (Thursday) from 11.00 a.m. to 01.00 p.m. in front of MCL Gate, Alathiyur, Senthurai Taluk, Ariyalur District or some other place which is prescribed by the Police Department.

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner gave a representation dated 14.02.2026 to the 2^nd respondent to hold a protest before the gate of Ramco Cements on 20.02.2026 at 10.00 a.m., but the impugned rejection order was issued on 18.02.2026 at odd hours not giving sufficient time for making alternate arrangements or alternate date for holding protest. Further the petitioner questioned the impugned rejection order on the ground that no reason given for rejecting the petitioner’s representation. He further submitted that showing protest and holding demonstration is a fundamental right which cannot be denied mechanically without sufficient reason. The reason for the protest is that Ramco Cements acquired lands of the villagers on the promise that they would give compensation to the land owners and also give employment, but no proper compensation and employment were given to the lands owners. Hence, the aggrieved persons needed to hold demonstration so that the management would address the grievance of the protestors.

3.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner gave representation to the 2^nd respondent to hold a protest on 20.02.2026 and now 20.02.2026 has passed by, hence, the prayer of the petitioner becomes infructuous. He fairly submitted that in the impugned rejection order, the 2^nd respondent not gave any reason for rejecting the petitioner’s representation. He further submitted the information received by the 2^nd respondent is that if permission is granted to the petitioner to hold a protest, there is a likelihood of disturbance to law and order and disruption of public harmony and further it would affect the production of Ramco Cements. Hence, he sought for dismissal.

4.Considering the submissions and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that showing protest and holding demonstration is a fundamental right. In the impugned rejection order, there is no reference to any disturbance to law and order and disruption of public harmony. If there is really any such problem, the same should be reflected in the impugned order. In this case, it is no so.

5.In view of above, this Court directs the petitioner to give a fresh request/representation to the 2^nd respondent Police for holding a demonstration on f