You Cannot Arbitrarily Deboard a Protester With Valid Ticket: Madras High Court to Railways

The Madras High Court on September 17, 2025, disposed of a writ petition filed by farmer leader P. Ayyakannu, reiterating that while citizens have a fundamental right to travel and protest, these rights are not absolute and are subject to reasonable restrictions. Court, however, sternly cautioned authorities against arbitrarily preventing individuals with valid tickets from traveling.

The single-judge bench of Justice B. Pugalendhi said, "Sections 55, 56, and 156 of the Railways Act, 1989, empower Railway authorities to deboard persons only in limited circumstances...None of these provisions permits deboarding of a passenger holding a valid ticket merely because he intends to protest. If such deboarding occurs, it would amount to an offence for which action must be taken against the concerned officials".

A writ petition was filed by P. Ayyakannu, the President of an organization dedicated to the welfare of farmers and river water linkage. Ayyakannu had approached the court seeking a writ of mandamus to restrain authorities from interfering with his and his members' travel to New Delhi to conduct a peaceful demonstration.

Ayyakannu's counsel, Advocate S. Muthukrishnan, submitted that the petitioner and his members were deboarded from trains on multiple occasions, despite holding valid tickets, specifically citing incidents in September 2024. He argued that these actions were deliberate attempts to prevent the petitioner from reaching New Delhi for a peaceful demonstration. The petitioner's long history of public protests was highlighted, including a 141-day demonstration at Jantar Mantar and a march from Kanyakumari to Chennai. Court was also informed that similar obstructions in 2015 and 2016 had previously led to the filing of writ petitions that were allowed, affirming petitioner's rights under Article 19 of the Constitution.

In response to the petition, the Commissioner of Police, Trichy, filed a counter-affidavit, alleging that the petitioner's protests often lacked prior permission or violated conditions when granted. The affidavit detailed what it termed as "public nuisance," citing instances where Ayyakannu's group allegedly used masks of the Prime Minister, involved senior citizens in fasts, wore half-naked attire, and used human skulls and bones as garlands. The counter-affidavit also mentioned dangerous acts, such as instigating members to climb cellphone towers and lie near burning dead bodies. The court was informed that 73 cases had been registered against the petitioner.

"The petitioner's professed motive may appear legal, his methods amount to public nuisance, with the underlying objective being to draw public attention," the court noted, citing the Police's affidavit.

The single judge bench, after hearing both sides, noted that while the petitioner's claim of being deboarded lacked specific dates and details, it could not issue a general mandamus on "vague averments". It pointed out that Ayyakannu was also an advocate; therefore, he could have initiated immediate legal action at the time of the alleged incidents.

However, court recalled that Mahatma Gandhi himself was once deboarded from a train, an incident that became a turning point in India's struggle for freedom. "It is to ensure such freedom, our Constitution now guarantees fundamental rights," the court stated.

It emphasized that the right to move freely, assemble peacefully, and voice grievances under Articles 19(1)(a), (b), and (d) are at the "very core of democratic participation".

Citing the Supreme Court's observations in Anita Thakur and Others vs. Government of Jammu and Kashmir (2016), the bench underscored the constitutional recognition of peaceful protest as a fundamental right. It further highlighted that Sections 55, 56, and 156 of the Railways Act, 1989, do not permit authorities to deboard a person holding a valid ticket simply because they intend to protest.

Conclusively, court held that while the petitioner's rights are guaranteed, they are not absolute. It said that the petitioner is bound to obtain prior permission for protests and conduct them in a lawful manner. At the same time, i made itt clear that authorities cannot arbitrarily obstruct his travel. If any such obstruction occurs, the petitioner has the liberty to initiate legal proceedings against the concerned officials.

With these observations, court disposed of the petition. 

Case Title: P. Ayyakannu vs. Union of India and Others

Order Date: September 17, 2025

Bench: Justice B. Pugalendhi