Sanitation Workers Protest | Madras High Court Directs State To Remove Protesting Workers, Says Demonstration Can Only Be In Authorised Place

The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan noted that the workers could protest only at authorised places. Since the rippon building was not an authorised place for protest, and since no permission had been taken to conduct the protest, the court ordered them to be removed from the place.

"While the right of the second respondent to lodge peaceful protest cannot be denied, the second respondent is also obliged to ensure that the agitation is peaceful and without violating the laws of the land. We hope and expect that in the name of agitation, the pavements/pathways/roads shall not be allowed to be blocked," the court said. 

The court also added that it would be open for the protesting workers to make applications to the concerned authorities seeking permission for conducting the protest, which could be considered appropriately.

"The authorities shall also ensure that if the second respondent applies for a space to peacefully organise protest in accordance with the provisions of law, the same shall be examined and appropriate order shall be passed so as to ensure that second respondent may be allowed to exercise its right of peaceful protest and agitation and, at the same time, pavements/pathways/roads, where such protest is not permissible, are not allowed to be occupied," the court said. 

After the court made the orders, Additional Advocate General J Ravindran, appearing for the State added that the State did not wish to use force to remove the protesting workers. He submitted that the State was in solidarity with the workers, who belonged to the marginalised caste, and requested the workers to disburse on their own.

“Let them peacefully disburse untill they get permission. Let them make a permission. Tomorrow it should not be construed that we were harsh on them. Being the weaker section, poorest of the poor, we don't want to exert force on them. Let them disburse peacefully. We request them. We're for them. If any issue, we'll look into it. We have solidarity with them,” the AAG said.

The GCC had recently announced that it planned to outsource the solid waste management in two zones – Royapuram (Zone 5) and Thiru Vi Ka Nagar (Zone 6) to some private agencies. The GCC had asked the workers to coordinate with the private agencies.

Following this, the workers began protesting contending that their livelihoods would be affected with the new move. It was contended that the move would reduce job security and increase a risk of exploitation. The workers are also claiming that they be regularised and be endured equal pay for equal services.

The orders were made in a petition filed by D Thenmozhi for clearing the agitators protesting at the pavement/platform near the Rippon building. Senior Advocate Raghavachari, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the protestors had occupied the pavements and restricted the free movement of traffic.

Advocate Sakarasubbu, appearing for the organisation, representing the workers submitted that they had a democratic right to protest. He also denied the claim that the workers were restricting movement through their protests.

Case Title: D Thenmozhi v The Inspector of Police (law and Order) and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 274

Case No: WP No 30607 of 2025