J. ESWARAN V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. W.P.CRL.(MD) NO.448 OF 2025:

DATE: 09/07/2025

COURT: High Court of Madras

BENCH: Justice B. Pugalendhi

FACTS:

The present writ petition was filed by the State Coordinator of a political party, challenging the rejection order dated 06.07.2025 passed by the second respondent police authority. The petitioner had sought permission to conduct a protest on 08.07.2025 between 2:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. at Thiruppuvanam Santhai Thidal, Sivagangai District, against the alleged custodial death of one Ajith Kumar. However, the second respondent denied permission on several grounds. It was noted that the petitioner’s party had already conducted a protest on the same issue at the same location on 03.07.2025. The police also cited the coinciding Chariot (Therottam) Festival at a nearby temple on 08.07.2025, which would require substantial police deployment to ensure public safety, particularly given the expected presence of women and children. Additionally, the protest site was in close proximity to sensitive locations such as government offices, schools, hospitals, and commercial establishments. The date of protest also coincided with the weekly market (Santhai), which draws large crowds from nearby villages. Concerns were raised over the limited capacity of the protest site, lack of infrastructure for crowd and traffic management, and the petitioner’s failure to indicate expected crowd size. Cumulatively, the police concluded that allowing the protest could endanger public safety, cause severe traffic disruptions, and lead to possible law and order issues.

In response, the petitioner contended that the rejection order was discriminatory, as permission had been granted to other political parties to protest on the same issue. It was further submitted that the petitioner’s party leader was allegedly prevented from participating in the earlier protest on 03.07.2025, and therefore a second protest was being planned. The writ petition was moved as a lunch motion on 07.07.2025, and this Court allowed urgent listing in light of the petitioner’s submission regarding unequal treatment. During the hearing, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the police reiterated the reasons for rejection and submitted that no restriction had been imposed on the participation of the petitioner’s leader in the earlier protest. A counter affidavit was filed by the respondent authorities, specifically denying any such discrimination or reference to the petitioner’s leader in the earlier permission request.

ISSUES:

The central issue in this case was whether the respondent police were justified in rejecting the petitioner political party’s request to conduct a protest on 08.07.2025 at Thiruppuvanam Santhai Thidal. The petitioner alleged discriminatory treatment, claiming that other political parties were granted permission to protest on the same issue, while their own request was denied. The legal question revolved around balancing the right to protest under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution against the imposition of reasonable restrictions under Articles 19(2) and 19(3), especially in light of public safety, convenience, and prior misconduct.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Court upheld the rejection order passed by the respondent police, finding no fault with the reasons provided. However, it permitted the petitioner to submit a fresh application seeking permission for protest at a later date, and directed the police to consider such application and make a decision within twenty-four hours of its receipt.

The Court emphasized that while the right to protest is a constitutionally protected right under Article 19(1)(a) and (b), it is not absolute and must be balanced against the rights of the general public. The Court observed that repeated protests at the same location within a short span of time could not be claimed as a matter of right, particularly when such protests may inconvenience the public or disrupt essential services. It stressed that public places are meant for public use, and protests must not cause visual, auditory, or logistical disturbances that interfere with the rights of others. The bench specifically noted the sanctity of public order and the importance of not using the right to protest in a manner that causes disharmony or persistent public irritation.

Additionally, the Court took serious note of the contents of the police counter affidavit, which reported that participants in the 03.07.2025 protest had used inflammatory and derogatory language, including communal references and remarks demeaning to women. Although the police had not taken formal action against the individuals responsible for such conduct, the Court emphasized the obligation of law enforcement to uphold the law and act against such violations. The Court ultimately concluded that the police had valid grounds to reject the protest request due to the coinciding temple festival, weekly market, previous protest, and the lack of logistical support at the proposed site.

ANALYSIS:

This case presents a classic conflict between the constitutionally guaranteed right to protest and the State’s duty to maintain public order and safety. While Article 19(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and peaceful assembly, these rights are not unfettered and must be read with the reasonable restrictions prescribed under Article 19(2) and (3). The petitioner political party, alleging discrimination, sought to assert its democratic right to protest again on the same issue and at the same location within five days of its previous protest. However, the Court was mindful that repeated public gatherings, especially in sensitive or congested areas, may adversely affect uninvolved citizens, strain civic infrastructure, and disrupt peace and order. The judgment rightly underscores that public protests, while vital in a democracy, cannot override the rights of the general public or the responsibilities of the State during high-pressure civic events.

The Court's approach balanced constitutional freedoms with the practical realities of governance. It not only accepted the police’s rationale such as the overlapping temple festival, traffic issues from the weekly market, and prior misconduct by speakers, but also held that no political party could claim an unrestricted or repeated right to protest in a particular location. Importantly, the Court acknowledged that the allegations regarding inflammatory and derogatory speech made during the previous protest were serious and warranted action, thereby reinforcing the accountability of both protestors and the police. However, the Court also ensured procedural fairness by allowing the petitioner to make a fresh application, directing the authorities to decide on it within a stipulated time, thus affirming that constitutional rights must be upheld within the bounds of lawful and reasonable limitations.