The Madras High Court has directed an urgent bail hearing for two villagers who were arrested and remanded for allegedly damaging property in a water body dispute, after the police admitted that no solar panels had been destroyed — contrary to what was submitted to the Sessions Court when it rejected their earlier bail plea. A Division Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice B. Pugalendhi questioned whether citizens can be blamed for acting on their own when the official machinery fails to act.

The court was hearing a writ petition filed by residents of Ammapatti and Nagappanpatti villages in Sivagangai district seeking removal of encroachments from water bodies and restoration of natural water flow. The petitioners took exception to work carried out by a commercial entity, Kwality Shutters, which had installed solar panels on over 65 acres of patta land through the fifth respondent, Athappan. To access the land, the entity formed a mud road that cut across the water catchment area and laid cement pipes beneath it — both actions conceded before the court to have been done without any permission from authorities.

When the villagers protested, the Keelasevalpatti police registered Crime No. 105 of 2026 on September 15 under Sections 191(2), 296(2) and 395(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992. Two individuals, Natarajan and Xavier Kennedy, were arrested on September 23 and remanded to judicial custody. Their bail petition was dismissed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Sivagangai on October 6.

False Allegations and Arrest

The High Court examined the Sessions Court's dismissal order and found that it had been influenced by the representation that solar panels worth Rs. 10 lakh had been destroyed. The Division Bench directly questioned the instructing police official present in court and received a frank admission that no damage had been caused to any solar panel. The only damage was to the cement culvert pipes, which the official conceded had been installed illegally in the tank bund area without permission.

The court noted that the villagers had approached the administration for action but were met with indifference. "Left with no other option, the villagers themselves removed the culvert pipes on their own. We may not be able to condone the said act. But, for how long should they wait? When the official machinery fails, can we blame the citizenry for acting on their own?" the court observed.

High Court's Intervention

Stating that the continued incarceration of the two individuals was not warranted, the court invoked its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. It relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil and quoted extensively from Arnab Goswami v. State of Maharashtra to emphasise the importance of liberty.

"Deprivation of liberty even for a single day is one day too many," the court recalled, citing Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. It noted that the bail petitions had been dismissed by projecting falsehood before the Sessions Court .

The court directed the Principal Sessions Judge, Sivagangai to hold a special sitting the next day, October 10, at 11.00 a.m. to hear the fresh bail petitions to be filed on behalf of Natarajan and Xavier Kennedy. The Assistant Public Prosecutor was directed to appear and place the correct facts before the court.

Protecting Environmental Activism

The court went on to emphasise the need for citizens who stand up for ecological causes. "Here, we find a group of rustic villagers espousing the cause of environment. They might have gone overboard. They might have taken the law in their own hands. But we cannot forget the fact that they had only damaged something that was illegally installed. We need persons with passion to stand up for the cause of ecology. If such persons are made to languish in jail on false allegations , that would stifle even genuine activism. People will hesitate to engage in field level confrontation which appears to be becoming necessary. They alone can stand between protection of ecology and corporate greed."

The court listed the matter for reporting compliance on October 12, 2026 at 4:40 p.m. The Registry was directed to immediately communicate the order to the Principal Sessions Judge, Sivagangai. While the bench refrained from indicating the outcome of the bail hearing, it expressed confidence that the Assistant Public Prosecutor would make amends by properly placing the facts before the trial court.