“Protest Not Meant for Fun”: Madras HC Declines Plea for Repeat Protest

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.

Case Title: J.Eswaran vs The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors

Download order here