Asst Commissioner Can't Issue Blanket Ban On Vehicles Entering Madurai: Madras High Court On Mandatory Pass For Murugan Conference

The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice K Rajasekar held that the Assistant Commissioner could not have passed such a blanket prohibitory order as the officer did not have control over the entire city. The court also noted that there was no strong reason to interfere with the fundamental right of the citizens.

“Once we find that the Assistant Commissioner could not have issued a blanket prohibitory order restraining the entry of vehicles into Madurai city without a vehicle pass for the conference participants, then we have to necessarily strike it down. We are of the view that the fundamental rights of the citizens cannot be interfered with without strong reasons which are totally absent in this case,” the court said.

The bench was hearing an appeal filed on behalf of Hindu Munnani against a condition imposed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police for the conduct of a conference of the devotees of Lord Murugan. As per the condition, all vehicles coming for the conference had to obtain a vehicle pass mandatorily. Though an SLP was filed against this condition, the same was withdrawn with liberty to approach the High Court. Hence, the present appeal was filed.

The appellant argued that the condition was violative of their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution. The appellants also argued that the Assistant Commissioner did not have jurisdiction to impose such a condition. Highlighting the practical difficulty in obtaining passes for every vehicle entering Madurai, the appellants argued that the condition was unreasonable and onerous. It was thus alleged that the State was attempting to put spokes in the wheels and discourage the participants form attending the conference.

The State, on the other hand, submitted that the Assistant Commissioner was competent to issue such a condition. The State argued that the participant's right to participate was not being denied and it was only being regulated to maintain law and order.

The court noted that the Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction only over her territorial limits and could not have issued an order preventing the entry of vehicles to Madurai city. The court added that the citizens had a right to movement under Article 19 (1) (d) of the Constitution, and this right could not be interfered with by the order of the Assistant Commissioner.

“An Assistant Commissioner can have jurisdiction and sway only over her territorial limits. She could not have issued an order preventing entry of vehicles into Madurai city. Right to movement throughout the territory of India is guaranteed to all citizens under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India. It is open to any citizen to enter Madurai city in his/her vehicle and such a right cannot be interfered with by an Assistant Commissioner of Police,” the court said.

The court further noted that in the present case, nothing had been shown by the officials in support of the conditions. The court added that the authorities had failed to specify the problems anticipated by them for imposing the conditions. The court also noted that in a republican democracy like ours, the ease of participation in democratic gatherings is equally vital.

With respect to the concerns put forward by the authorities, the court noted that the appellant had undertaken that participants would come in their personal vehicles or hired vehicles and deposit photostat copies of RC book, insurance certificate, and driving license in the police booths maintained by the Madurai City Police.

Thus noting that the Assistant Commission did not have authority to impose such a condition and that the organisers have agreed to make necessary arrangements, the court set aside the particular condition.

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.N. Ananthapadmanabhan, Senior Advocate, Mr. K. P. S. Palanivelrajan, Senior Advocate for Mr. M. Karthikeya Venkitachalapathy

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. R. Baskaran, Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr. T. Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

Case Title: M Arasupandi v. The Commissioner of Police and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 211

Case No: W.A(MD)No.1673 of 2025