Madras HC Restricts Public Meetings on Highways Pending SOPs for Crowd Management: A Landmark Judicial Directive

Judicial Intervention: Madras High Court Mandates SOPs for Public Gatherings Following Fatal Incident

In an unprecedented move following a tragic incident that claimed over 40 lives, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has issued a stringent interim order regulating political and public gatherings across Tamil Nadu. The court, presided over by Justices M. Dhandapani and M. Jothiraman, ruled that until a comprehensive Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) is finalized and approved, no governmental agency shall grant permission for public meetings to be held on State or National Highways.

A Response to Tragedy

The batch of writ petitions, which included Senthilkannan vs. The Director General of Police (HOPF) and others, stemmed from deep public concern regarding mass-gathering safety. The court noted that a recent incident resulting in dozens of deaths, including children, had left an "indelible imprint in the minds of the common man." The petitioners argued that the current lack of legally binding protocols for crowd management places the public at severe risk, especially given that many political parties have been conducting mass rallies on busy highways without any statutory authorization.

Arguments and Legal Discourse

The petitioners emphasized that current administrative permissions are being granted in a legal vacuum. They urged the court to mandate the adoption of safety guidelines established by the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), the National Institute for Disaster Management (NIDM), and the Bureau for Police Research and Development (BPRD).

The State, represented by the Additional Advocate General, informed the court that the government is already in the process of formulating an SOP pursuant to previous directions from the Principal Seat of the High Court in W.P. (Crl.) No. 884 of 2025 . The State gave a formal undertaking that until such time as these new policies are finalized, the administration would withhold permissions for rallies on highways.

Key Observations

The Court expressed significant concern over the current state of regulatory oversight regarding public assemblies:

> "The manner in which such permission is granted by the law enforcing agency for conduct of public meetings, to the best knowledge of this Court, is not governed by any law or statute."

The bench further addressed the issue of utilizing highways for campaigns:

> "This Court is at a loss to understand as to the source of power, which has been wielded by the district agency/law enforcing agency to grant permission for conduct of public meetings on the State Highways/National Highways... such permission is impermissible."

Regarding the necessity of standardized safety, the Court noted:

> "The authority/law enforcing agency shall ensure that the respective political party/organization adheres to all the safety measures, including providing drinking water, provision of medical facilities inclusive of ambulance at call, proper sanitation facilities, sufficient parking space and other basic necessities."

The Court’s Directive

The Court has imposed an interim ban on public meetings occurring on highways. However, the ruling provides a clear roadmap for future activity: 1. Designated Spaces : Permissions are to be limited to areas specifically earmarked for public meetings. 2. Identification of Sites : Where no earmarked space exists, organizers must identify suitable locations, which the administration will vet for public convenience and vehicular flow. 3. Safety Mandates : For any approved gathering, organizers must provide essential infrastructure, including emergency medical services, clearly marked escape/exit routes, and appropriate sanitation. 4. Undertakings : Authorities are required to obtain written affidavits/undertakings from organizers to ensure liability until the comprehensive SOP is formally approved.

This judicial intervention marks a significant shift in how political demonstrations will be conducted in Tamil Nadu, prioritizing public safety over the traditional, unchecked use of public infrastructure for political campaigns. The petitioners have been granted liberty to join the pending proceedings at the Principal Seat to ensure their concerns regarding the final draft of the SOP are heard.