Madras High Court Reserves Orders On Pleas Challenging Detention of Lawyers & Law Students Who Took Part In Sanitation Workers Protest
The Madras High Court, on Friday, reserved orders on a habeas corpus petition challenging the detention of lawyers and law students who took part in the protest organised by the sanitation workers in Chennai, challenging the Greater Chennai Corporation's decision to privatise the sanitation work in some zones. The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice V Lakshminarayanan also mulled...
The Madras High Court, on Friday, reserved orders on a habeas corpus petition challenging the detention of lawyers and law students who took part in the protest organised by the sanitation workers in Chennai, challenging the Greater Chennai Corporation's decision to privatise the sanitation work in some zones.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice V Lakshminarayanan also mulled the possibility of appointing a One-man committee headed by a former judge of the High Court to probe into the alleged violence that took place between the police and the protestors.
On 13th August, the Madras High Court bench headed by Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava had directed the State to take action to remove the protesting sanitary workers, who had been protesting in front of the Rippon Building for almost 12 days. The bench had noted that proper permission had not been obtained for the protest and thus asked the protestors to conduct the protest after taking due permission, not causing any inconvenience to the public.
Following this, on the night of 13th August, when the police tried to remove the protestors, it led to an altercation between the police and the lawyers and law students who had joined the protestors. Following this the lawyers and law students, along with protestors were detained by the police. The present habeas corpus petition was filed challenging the detention.
On the previous hearing, the court had directed the 4 lawyers and 2 law students to be released, after noting that their detention was prima facie unlawful. However, the lawyers and the law students were asked not to give any press interviews or statements or post anything on social media regarding the issue at hand.
When the case was taken up for hearing, the bench asked the Additional Advocate General if the state was willing to drop the cases against the lawyers and the law students. To this, the AAG submitted that dropping the case would send a wrong message as if lawyers were above law. He also informed the bench that apart from government property, individuals were also affected by the action of the lawyers and the law students and thus, it would not be wise to drop the case.
On the other hand, the lawyers appearing for the petitioners alleged that the police had used excessive force on the protestors and thus a probe was necessary to ascertain the truth.
Hearing the parties, the court also contemplated appointing a one-man commission and said it would pass orders on the pleas.
Case Title: S. Vijay v. The Commissioner of Police
Case No: HCP 1599 of 2025