Right To Peaceful Protest Is Not Absolute And Cannot Justify Blocking Public Pavements/Roads: Madras High Court - 2025-08-13

Court Cases & Legal News.

Madras High Court Balances Right to Protest with Public Access, Orders Pavements Cleared

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court, in a significant order, has underscored that the fundamental right to peaceful protest does not extend to occupying public pavements and roads, thereby causing inconvenience to citizens. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan directed law enforcement authorities to ensure public pathways are not blocked in the name of agitation.

The Court disposed of a writ petition filed by D. Thenmozhi, which highlighted the issue of protestors from a union occupying a pavement and platform, causing a serious nuisance to the public.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, D. Thenmozhi, approached the High Court with a grievance that members of a respondent Union were blocking public thoroughfares for an agitation. This was allegedly happening despite a notice having been issued on August 7, 2025, under Section 41 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888, which empowers the police to regulate public assemblies and processions. The petitioner sought the court's intervention to clear the obstruction and restore public access.

Arguments and Court's Observations

The Learned Additional Advocate General , representing the state, informed the court that following the issuance of the notice, authorities would take appropriate action in accordance with the law to vacate any illegally occupied public spaces.

The Bench, in its ruling, sought to strike a delicate balance between two competing rights: the Union's right to protest and the public's right to unhindered movement.

"While the right of the second respondent to lodge peaceful protest cannot be denied, the second respondent is also obliged to ensure that the agitation is peaceful and without violating the laws of the land."

The court articulated a clear expectation that public spaces must remain accessible. It observed:

"We hope and expect that in the name of agitation, the pavements/pathways/roads shall not be allowed to be blocked."

Directions and Final Decision

The High Court laid down a two-pronged directive for the authorities. Firstly, they must ensure that protests are not held in impermissible areas like pavements, pathways, and roads. Secondly, if the respondent Union applies for a designated space to conduct a peaceful protest, the authorities must examine the request and pass appropriate orders. This ensures that the Union can exercise its constitutional right without infringing upon the rights of the general public.

The judgment also included a crucial word of caution for the law enforcement agencies, emphasizing the need for measured action.

"We may further observe here that all restraint shall be exercised by the law enforcing agency while ensuring that the pavements/pathways/roads are not allowed for organising and staging protest."

By disposing of the writ petition with these clear directions, the Madras High Court has reaffirmed the principle that while the right to protest is a cornerstone of democracy, it must be exercised responsibly and within the confines of the law, ensuring that public order and convenience are not compromised. The court passed no order as to costs.