Protests Are Not Meant For Fun, Can't Be Held At Whims And Fancies Of Political Parties: Madras High Court

Justice B. Pugalendhi highlighted that political parties have a responsibility towards the general public who would be affected by the protests. The court added that the right to protest should not affect the right of the general public who are not associated with the protests.

“The conducting of protest is not meant for fun and such protests cannot be conducted to the whims and fancies of the political parties. The political parties are having certain responsibilities towards general public, who would be disturbed pursuant to their protests. The protests, if any conducted would certainly affect the right of free movement of common public and it would disturb the people in and around the place of protests,” the court said.

The court also highlighted that the right to protest did not give a right to cause inconvenience to the public, and such right should not be used to cause irritation and disharmony. The court added that though protests could be carried out public places, its purpose should not be forgotten.

“The right of protest should not infringe on the right of the general public and those who are not associated with the protest. The right to protest, does not include the right to cause inconvenience to the public. The sacrosanct right of protest cannot be used in a cavalier manner to cause persistent irritation or disharmony to the general public. The aspect of visual and auricular violation aggression against the general public should be kept in mind while such protests are carried out. The public places are basically meant for the use of public and while protesting in such places is a valuable democratic tool, the purpose for which such places exist should not be forgotten. No person can claim that he should be allowed to protest repeatedly at the same place without restrictions,” the court observed.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Naam Tamilzar Katchi party seeking permission to conduct protest in connection with the recent custodial death of a temple guard in Sivaganga. The party had approached the court after the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Manamadurai Sub Division, Sivaganga, rejected the party's request to conduct the protest on 8^th July 2025.

The party had argued that the police had allowed other political parties to conduct a protest on the issue, but had rejected the party's request, thus discriminating against the party. In response, the police informed the court that the party had already conducted a protest on the same issue and at the same place on 3^rd July 2025.

To this, the party submitted that the police had objected to the participation of party leader in the protest held on 3^rd July 2025, and thus, the party wanted to hold the present protest along with their leader. The state, on the other hand, submitted that it had not rejected the leader's participation in the protest conducted on 3^rd July.

The court noted that the state had refused to grant permission for the protest on the ground that a prior protest was held on the same issue and at the same place. The state had also cited that a chariot festival was to be held at the place on the same day and thus, the force would be engaged to ensure peaceful conduct of the chariot festival. The state had also submitted that the protest was to be held in an area close to government offices, schools, hospitals, etc, and thus there were concerns of traffic congestion. Further, the state also pointed out that the date of the protest coincided with the weekly market and it would thus disrupt the local commerce.

The court agreed with the reasons cited by the police for rejecting the request. Since the party claimed that its leader had not participated in the previous protest and intended to participate in the next protest, the court asked the party to submit a fresh application. The court also directed the authorities to consider the fresh application and take a decision on the same within 24 hours.

The court also took note of the fact that some communal statements were made by the speakers who participated in the protest held on 3^rd July, which could demean the dignity of women. Though the state had not taken any action against the person who made the statements, the court stressed that it was the responsibility of the law-enforcing authority to implement the law in the true spirit.

Counsel for Appellant: Mr. M. Dinesh Hari Sudarsan,

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. E. Antony Sahaya Prabhakar, Additional Public Prosecutor

Case Title: J Eswaran v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 237

Case No: W.P.Crl.(MD)No.448 of 2025