'Protest Not Meant For Fun': Madras HC Declines NTK's Plea For Repeat Agitation At Same Venue
Justice B Pugalendhi observed, "Conducting protest is not meant for fun, and such protests cannot be conducted to the whims and fancies of the political parties".
The Madras High Court at Madurai Bench recently upheld the decision of the Tamil Nadu police to deny permission to the political party Naam Tamilar Katchi (NTK) for conducting a second protest at the same venue within 5 days over the recent custodial death of temple guard Ajith Kumar. Court stressed that the right to protest is not absolute and must be balanced against the rights of the general public and law and order concerns.
Justice B Pugalendhi observed, 'Conducting protest is not meant for fun, and such protests cannot be conducted to the whims and fancies of the political parties".
The judge stressed that the political parties have certain responsibilities towards the general public and that the right to protest is subject to reasonable restrictions.
'The issue also has to be approached from the point of view of the rights of the general public and those who are not associated with the protest. The right of protest should not infringe on the right of the general public," Justice Pugalendhi emphasised.
He said that 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," he added.
A plea was filed by J Eswaran, NTK's State Coordinator, challenging an order dated July 6, 2025, passed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Manamadurai. The order rejected NTK's request to hold a demonstration on July 8, citing multiple grounds, including an earlier protest on July 3 at the same site, the coinciding temple chariot festival that required full police deployment, and the weekly market at Thiruppuvanam which sees heavy footfall from nearby villages.
Police also flagged the site's limitations that it sits along the state highway with capacity for only 200–300 people, lacks parking and crowd management infrastructure, and is close to sensitive areas such as schools and hospitals.
On the other hand, NTK argued that they had been unfairly singled out, pointing out that their party leader, Seeman, had not been allowed to participate in the July 3 protest due to police objections, and that they were now seeking to protest again with his presence. However, police denied placing any such restriction and submitted that no mention of Seeman's participation was made in the original request.
Justice Pugalendhi, after hearing both sides, held that while the right to protest is fundamental under Article 19(1), it is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) and 19(3) of the Constitution.
Court also took judicial note of serious allegations raised in the police counter-affidavit. During the July 3 protest, NTK members allegedly used 'filthy language," invoked communal rhetoric, and demeaned women, including references to the complainant in the custodial death case. However, the police admitted that no legal action had been taken against the individuals responsible.
'This court cannot find fault with the reasons assigned by the respondent police for rejecting the request," the judge observed stressing that no person can claim that he should be allowed to protest repeatedly at the same place without restrictions.
Court permitted the petitioner to file a fresh application and directed the police to decide on it within 24 hours.
view comments
First Published:
July 14, 2025, 17:33 IST
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Pleas of GSECL staff to retain jobs after invalid caste certificates junked
Ahmedabad: The Gujarat high court has rejected a petition filed by 18 employees of the Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd (GSECL) seeking to retain their jobs despite their caste certificates being declared invalid. The petitioners argued that they had served as Vidyut Sahayaks for 15 years and requested not to be terminated, but to instead be accommodated in the general category. They were originally appointed under the Socially and Economically Backward Class (SEBC) category, claiming to belong to the Sindha community. However, their services were terminated after a scrutiny committee found their SEBC certificates to be invalid. While dismissing the petition, Justice Sandeep Bhatt stated, "The petitioners are continued on the posts on which they were appointed on the basis of the caste certificates, which were held to be illegal by the scrutiny committee, because of which, the rights of the genuinely deserving persons of the said community were infringed. The persons who are possessing genuine caste certificates have been waiting for their turn to be appointed but due to the petitioners, whose caste certificates are held illegal, being continued, they could not be given a chance to be appointed i.e. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like An engineer reveals: One simple trick to get internet without a subscription Techno Mag Learn More Undo the wrong are given the benefit and the right are deprived of the benefit." You Can Also Check: Ahmedabad AQI | Weather in Ahmedabad | Bank Holidays in Ahmedabad | Public Holidays in Ahmedabad The high court did not find any illegality or arbitrariness in the govt's decision to terminate the petitioners' services. Notably, the petitioners' SEBC caste certificates were found invalid as early as 2012—two years after they joined service. There were multiple rounds of litigation, up to the Supreme Court. During the pendency of these legal proceedings, the petitioners were allowed to continue in their jobs. At one stage, a division bench of the high court suggested the govt consider accommodating them under the general category, but the administration found this unfeasible. The employees then filed a fresh petition earlier this year seeking continuation of service. In this regard, Justice Bhatt observed, "This plea is not available to the petitioners, as—actually speaking—deducting the period of litigation, they effectively worked only two years. For the rest of the years, they have been working on sympathy only."
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
High court disposes of writ petition against UP govt's decision to merge primary schools
1 2 Prayagraj: The Allahabad high court disposed of a writ petition challenging the Uttar Pradesh govt's order to merge small primary and upper primary schools with fewer than 50 enrolled students into larger nearby schools, saying that the matter has already been decided by the HC's Lucknow bench. Disposing of the writ petition filed by Shashi and four others, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed, "The order passed by the Lucknow bench on July 7 has been placed before this court. On perusal of the said order, it reflects that the controversy has already been settled by the Lucknow bench." "Taking into consideration the submissions made by the senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, and the judgment and order passed by a coordinate bench of this court, the writ petition is disposed of," the court said in its order dated July 10. The Uttar Pradesh govt had on June 16 announced that it plans to merge small primary and upper primary schools with fewer than 50 students into larger nearby schools. This decision aims to improve education quality and optimise resource utilisation, citing issues of underutilisation and inefficiency in these small schools. However, the stand of the petitioners in the writ petition was that the merger violated the right to education (RTE) Act and could hinder children's access to education by forcing them to travel further to new schools. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like An engineer reveals: One simple trick to get internet without a subscription Techno Mag Learn More Undo Besides, the decision could disproportionately affect girls and lead to increased dropout rates, added the writ petition. Pronouncing the verdict, the Lucknow bench had on July 7 said that the state govt is bound to ensure that no child is left out because of any action taken by it. It had observed, "On a complete analysis of Rule 4(1), Rule 4(2) and Rule 4(3) read conjointly of the Right to Education Act, it is clear that the state govt is bound to establish school on the nearest possible place from a habitation and in the absence thereof, it is obliged to ensure transportation facilities etc., and in conjunction thereof identifying the neighbourhood schools, whether they are government schools or otherwise. " Considering the National Education Policy 2020 framed by the central govt, the bench had said, "The policy in itself is laudable and prescriptions have been given with regard to the steps to be taken to ensure that education is imparted at the initial level to all the citizens and the children of the country."
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Marriage declared null & void, but wife can still claim maintenance under Domestic Violence Act: Bombay HC
Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court ruled that a woman whose marriage was declared null and void by the family court is still entitled to maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (DV) Act. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now This reaffirms that annulment does not dilute a woman's rights under protective legislation. Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke dismissed a criminal revision plea filed by a Jaripatka-based private sector employee, who challenged the lower courts' decision ordering him to pay ₹5,000 in monthly maintenance, ₹2,000 in house rent, and ₹50,000 as compensation to his estranged wife. The man contended that since his marriage was annulled ex parte by a family court in 2017, the woman ceased to be his wife and was therefore not entitled to maintenance. Rejecting this argument, the court observed that the family court's decree of nullity was passed without the wife's presence and was based entirely on unsubstantiated claims made by the petitioner. "When a husband levels serious allegations of such a nature, the onus on him is very heavy," Justice Joshi-Phalke noted, adding, "in ex parte proceedings, the plaintiff retains the burden of proof". The man alleged that the woman concealed a prior relationship before marriage on November 6, 2016, and used this claim as basis for annulment. However, the court found his statements vague and without corroboration. "He neither examined any witnesses nor produced any solid proof. His evidence is not specific," the judge remarked. The woman had moved a complaint under the Domestic Violence (DV) Act in Katol magistrate court, citing mental abuse, insult, and restrictions imposed on her communication with her parents. She said she was forced to leave the matrimonial home and return to her parental house due to mistreatment, and since no provision for her maintenance was made by her husband, she was entitled to relief under DV Act. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The high court affirmed the earlier rulings of the magistrate and sessions courts, upholding her entitlement to maintenance despite the annulment. "Considering the fact the wife has no source of income to lead her life, the family court granted compensation. I do not find any illegality in the order," Justice Joshi-Phalke concluded. Key Takeaways from Bombay High Court Ruling: Ex parte annulment based solely on vague or unsubstantiated claims carries limited legal weight Burden of proof lies on husband in such cases, particularly when making serious allegations Relief under Domestic Violence Act is not contingent on legal status of marriage Protective legislation remains applicable if evidence of abuse or abandonment is credible
