{"id":361006,"date":"2025-09-20T16:30:44","date_gmt":"2025-09-20T11:00:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=361006"},"modified":"2025-09-25T09:27:02","modified_gmt":"2025-09-25T03:57:02","slug":"madras-hc-on-arbitrary-travel-obstruction-of-protestors","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/20\/madras-hc-on-arbitrary-travel-obstruction-of-protestors\/","title":{"rendered":"Prior permission for protest necessary; authorities cannot obstruct travel arbitrarily when protestor held valid tickets: Madras High Court"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Madras High Court:<\/span> In the present petition, the petitioner, President of an organisation formed for the welfare of farmers and for promoting river water linkage, sought a writ of mandamus to restrain the authorities from interfering with his and his members’ free movement to New Delhi. He alleged repeated obstruction during travel for peaceful demonstrations, including being deboarded from trains despite holding valid tickets. A Single Judge Bench of B. Pugalendhi<\/span>, J., while disposing of the petition, held that while the petitioner was bound to obtain prior permission and conduct protests in accordance with law, the authorities were equally not entitled to obstruct his travel arbitrarily when he was in possession of valid tickets.<\/p>\n

Background:<\/h3>\n

The petitioner and his members travelled to New Delhi on multiple occasions but were deboarded from trains despite holding valid tickets. In September 2024, they were deboarded at Chengalpattu Railway Station after boarding at Trichy Junction, and on another occasion at a station in Madhya Pradesh. It was contended that these actions were deliberate attempts to prevent the petitioner from conducting peaceful demonstrations. Similar obstructions occurred in 2015 and 2016, leading to petitions that affirmed his rights under Article 19<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>, yet such interference continued.<\/p>\n

The petitioner had a history of public protests, including a 141-day demonstration at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi, a 100-day farmers’ awareness march from Kanyakumari to Chennai in 2018, and a rally at Parliament Street in November 2017. He claimed that both the State and Central Governments jointly obstructed his travel to prevent such agitations. A petition filed before the Supreme Court in 2025 was dismissed with liberty to approach the appropriate High Court, resulting in the present petition.<\/p>\n

The Commissioner of Police, Trichy, filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner conducted protests without prior permission and violated conditions when granted. The llegations included using masks of the Prime Minister’s face, conducting fasts involving senior citizens, participating in public meetings in half-naked attire, and using human skulls and bones as garlands, causing public nuisance.<\/p>\n

It was further alleged that the petitioner instigated members to climb cell phone towers, plunge into rivers, bury themselves in sand, climb temples, and lie near burning bodies in cremation grounds. Seventy-three cases were reportedly registered against him. While acknowledging his right to free movement under Article 19<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>, it was argued that such rights were subject to reasonable restrictions, and the petitioner habitually violated permissions, creating law and order issues. The authorities cited earlier court orders to assert their discretion in maintaining public order and emphasised the balance between fundamental rights and duties.<\/p>\n

Analysis and Decision:<\/h3>\n

The Court observed that the petitioner had averred that he was prevented from travelling in trains despite holding valid tickets, however, he failed to furnish specific dates regarding the alleged incidents in September 2024. The Court noted that it was also pointed out that the petitioner, his wife, and son, were Advocates, yet no legal proceedings were initiated at the relevant time and on such vague averments, the Court found it difficult to issue a general mandamus.<\/p>\n

At the same time, the Court recalled that Mahatma Gandhi was once deboarded from a train despite holding a valid ticket, and that incident became a turning point which inspired a movement ultimately securing freedom for the nation. The Court emphasised that it was to ensure such freedom, that the Constitution guaranteed fundamental rights. Among them, the right to move freely, to assemble peacefully, and to voice grievances under Articles 19(1)(a), (b)<\/a>, and (d) of the Constitution<\/a> formed the very core of democratic participation.<\/p>\n

The Court examined the provisions under Sections 55<\/a>, 56<\/a>, and 156<\/a> of the Railways Act, 1989<\/a>, which empowered Railway authorities to deboard persons only in limited circumstances like travelling without a ticket, suffering from infectious disease, or travelling in unauthorised parts of the train. The Court held that none of the provisions permitted deboarding of a passenger holding a valid ticket merely because he intended to protest and if such deboarding occurred, it would amount to an offence for which act<\/doclink>ion must be taken against the officials concerned.<\/p>\n

However, the Court emphasised that the right to movement and protest was not absolute as citizens were equally bound by their fundamental duties. The Court observed that the petitioner’s methods of agitation, including climbing cell phone towers, endangering lives of senior citizens, or using skulls and bones in public protests, were not compatible with lawful protest. The Court further noted that the law required prior permission before conducting demonstrations, and when such permission was granted, the conditions must be respected.<\/p>\n

In the present case, the Court observed that the petitioner failed to provide particulars of the alleged deboarding incidents, since being an Advocate, he could have taken immediate recourse to law at the relevant time before the appropriate forum. In the absence of specific material, the Court emphasised that it could not issue directions in general terms.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, the Court reiterated that the petitioner’s right to free movement and peaceful protest was guaranteed under the Constitution. However, such rights were held to be subject to reasonable restrictions. The Court held that while the petitioner was bound to obtain prior permission and conduct protests in accordance with law, the authorities were equally not entitled to obstruct his travel arbitrarily when he was in possession of valid tickets.<\/p>\n

The Court, therefore, disposed of the petition, holding that the petitioner had liberty to initiate appropriate legal proceedings against the officials concerned, if any future obstruction arose.<\/p>\n

[P. Ayyakannu v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 6829<\/a>, decided on 17-09-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

For the Petitioner:<\/span> S. Muthukrishnan<\/p>\n

For the Respondents:<\/span> K. Govindarajan, Deputy Solicitor General of India, F. Deepak, Special Government Pleader, E. Antony Sahaya Prabhakar, Additional Public Prosecutor.<\/p>\n

Buy Constitution of India  HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"Constitution<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“The law requires prior permission before conducting demonstrations, and when such permission is granted, conditions must be respected.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":361017,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[85209,86766,44253,66393,32000,2567,39622,44378,89540,89539,89538,89541],"class_list":["post-361006","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-article-19-constitution","tag-article-191a-constitution","tag-farmers-protest","tag-justice-b-pugalendhi","tag-legal-right","tag-Madras_High_Court","tag-peaceful-protest","tag-prior-permission","tag-protest-right","tag-section-156-railways-act","tag-section-55-railways-act","tag-unlawful-travel-obstruction"],"yoast_head":"\nMadras HC on arbitrary travel obstruction of protestors | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Madras High Court held that while prior permission is mandatory for carrying out protests, arbitrary travel obstruction of protestors cannot be done by authorities when they held valid tickets.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/20\/madras-hc-on-arbitrary-travel-obstruction-of-protestors\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Prior permission for protest necessary; authorities cannot obstruct travel arbitrarily when protestor held valid tickets: Madras High Court\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Madras High Court held that while prior permission is mandatory for carrying out protests, arbitrary travel obstruction of protestors cannot be done by authorities when they held valid tickets.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/20\/madras-hc-on-arbitrary-travel-obstruction-of-protestors\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-09-20T11:00:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-09-25T03:57:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/arbitrary-travel-obstruction-of-protestors.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Prior permission for protest necessary; authorities cannot obstruct travel arbitrarily when protestor held valid tickets: Madras High Court\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/20\/madras-hc-on-arbitrary-travel-obstruction-of-protestors\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/20\/madras-hc-on-arbitrary-travel-obstruction-of-protestors\/\",\"name\":\"Madras HC on arbitrary travel obstruction of protestors | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/20\/madras-hc-on-arbitrary-travel-obstruction-of-protestors\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/20\/madras-hc-on-arbitrary-travel-obstruction-of-protestors\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/arbitrary-travel-obstruction-of-protestors.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-09-20T11:00:44+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-09-25T03:57:02+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Madras High Court held that while prior permission is mandatory for carrying out protests, arbitrary travel obstruction of protestors cannot be done by authorities when they held valid tickets.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/20\/madras-hc-on-arbitrary-travel-obstruction-of-protestors\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/20\/madras-hc-on-arbitrary-travel-obstruction-of-protestors\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/20\/madras-hc-on-arbitrary-travel-obstruction-of-protestors\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/arbitrary-travel-obstruction-of-protestors.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/arbitrary-travel-obstruction-of-protestors.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"arbitrary travel obstruction of protestors\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/20\/madras-hc-on-arbitrary-travel-obstruction-of-protestors\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Prior permission for protest necessary; authorities cannot obstruct travel arbitrarily when protestor held valid tickets: Madras High Court\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Madras HC on arbitrary travel obstruction of protestors | SCC Times","description":"Madras High Court held that while prior permission is mandatory for carrying out protests, arbitrary travel obstruction of protestors cannot be done by authorities when they held valid tickets.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/20\/madras-hc-on-arbitrary-travel-obstruction-of-protestors\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Prior permission for protest necessary; authorities cannot obstruct travel arbitrarily when protestor held valid tickets: Madras High Court","og_description":"Madras High Court held that while prior permission is mandatory for carrying out protests, arbitrary travel obstruction of protestors cannot be done by authorities when they held valid tickets.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/20\/madras-hc-on-arbitrary-travel-obstruction-of-protestors\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-09-20T11:00:44+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-09-25T03:57:02+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/arbitrary-travel-obstruction-of-protestors.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Prior permission for protest necessary; authorities cannot obstruct travel arbitrarily when protestor held valid tickets: Madras High Court","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/20\/madras-hc-on-arbitrary-travel-obstruction-of-protestors\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/20\/madras-hc-on-arbitrary-travel-obstruction-of-protestors\/","name":"Madras HC on arbitrary travel obstruction of protestors | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/20\/madras-hc-on-arbitrary-travel-obstruction-of-protestors\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/20\/madras-hc-on-arbitrary-travel-obstruction-of-protestors\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/arbitrary-travel-obstruction-of-protestors.webp","datePublished":"2025-09-20T11:00:44+00:00","dateModified":"2025-09-25T03:57:02+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Madras High Court held that while prior permission is mandatory for carrying out protests, arbitrary travel obstruction of protestors cannot be done by authorities when they held valid tickets.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/20\/madras-hc-on-arbitrary-travel-obstruction-of-protestors\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/20\/madras-hc-on-arbitrary-travel-obstruction-of-protestors\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/20\/madras-hc-on-arbitrary-travel-obstruction-of-protestors\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/arbitrary-travel-obstruction-of-protestors.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/arbitrary-travel-obstruction-of-protestors.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"arbitrary travel obstruction of protestors"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/20\/madras-hc-on-arbitrary-travel-obstruction-of-protestors\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Prior permission for protest necessary; authorities cannot obstruct travel arbitrarily when protestor held valid tickets: Madras High Court"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/arbitrary-travel-obstruction-of-protestors.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":353804,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/18\/madras-hc-protest-is-not-meant-for-fun-whim-fancies-political-parties\/","url_meta":{"origin":361006,"position":0},"title":"Madras High Court: Protest is not meant for fun; cannot be held at whims and fancies of political parties","author":"Bharti","date":"July 18, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Public places are basically meant for public use and while protesting in such places is a valuable democratic tool, no person can claim that he should be allowed to protest repeatedly at the same place without restrictions.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Protest is not meant for fun","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Protest-is-not-meant-for-fun.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Protest-is-not-meant-for-fun.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Protest-is-not-meant-for-fun.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Protest-is-not-meant-for-fun.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":231829,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/07\/06\/madras-hc-police-failed-to-state-how-anti-caa-protest-by-accused-was-unlawful-court-quashes-criminal-case-against-accused-booked-for-anti-caa-protest\/","url_meta":{"origin":361006,"position":1},"title":"Madras HC | Police failed to state how anti-CAA protest by accused was unlawful: Court quashes criminal case against accused booked for anti-CAA protest","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"July 6, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Madras High Court:\u00a0G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J., allowed a criminal petition and quashed proceedings in the criminal case filed against the petitioner protesting against Citizenship Amendment Act. Case of the prosecution Petitioner along with other accused persons protested in the public road against the implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Act and further\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":350085,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/07\/rajasthan-high-court-recognises-farmers-protest-against-jawai-dam-water-distribution-as-democratic-dissent-scc-times\/","url_meta":{"origin":361006,"position":2},"title":"\u201cFarmers\u2019 protest against Jawai Dam water distribution as democratic dissent stemmed from genuine resentment\u201d; Rajasthan High Court quashes FIR","author":"Ritu","date":"June 7, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cIn a democracy, of the people, by the people, and for the people, peaceful protest is a constitutional right. Simply because an individual took to the streets to protest in order to safeguard their rights when their interests were affected does not imply that they have committed offences.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Rajasthan High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Rajasthan-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Rajasthan-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Rajasthan-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Rajasthan-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":379497,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/26\/mad-hc-dismisses-plea-for-daily-protest-until-world-war-ends\/","url_meta":{"origin":361006,"position":3},"title":"\u201cNo absolute right to protest at chosen venue\u201d; Madras HC dismisses \u2018unusual prayer\u2019 for daily protest \u201cuntil World War ends\u201d dismissed with Rs 50,000 costs","author":"Soumya Yadav","date":"March 26, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe right to protest is protected, however, the right to insist upon a particular public junction for an indefinite recurring protest is not.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"plea for daily protest","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/plea-for-daily-protest.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/plea-for-daily-protest.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/plea-for-daily-protest.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/plea-for-daily-protest.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":275885,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/18\/kerala-high-court-kerala-police-act-pinarayi-vijayan-common-object-unlawful-assembly-criminal-force-peaceful-protest-constitution-of-india-fundamental-rights-legal-research-leagl-news-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":361006,"position":4},"title":"Kerala High Court quashes proceedings against CM Pinarayi Vijayan and 11 other CPI(M) leaders protesting for withdrawal from free trade agreement between India and the ASEAN","author":"Editor","date":"October 18, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Kerala High Court: In a case relating to a complaint for offences under Sections 143, 147, 149 and 283 of the Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 38 r\/w section 52 of the Kerala Police Act, 1960, for formation of Statewide human chain by the Communist Party of India\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Kerala High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/kerla_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/kerla_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/kerla_high_court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/kerla_high_court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/kerla_high_court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":285234,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/25\/rss-route-march-madras-high-court-single-judge-cannot-modify-order-passed-in-writ-petition-while-exercising-jurisdiction-to-punish-respondents-under-a-contempt-petition-legal-research\/","url_meta":{"origin":361006,"position":5},"title":"[RSS Route-March] Madras High Court: Single Judge cannot modify order passed in writ petition, while exercising jurisdiction under a contempt petition","author":"Apoorva","date":"February 25, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Madras High Court held that that the order passed in writ petition had been fundamentally modified by the order passed in the contempt petition, the effect of which resulted in a veiled attempt to sit in judgment\/appeal over the order passed in the writ petition, which is not permissible in\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Madras High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-455.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-455.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-455.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-455.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/361006","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=361006"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/361006\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/361017"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=361006"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=361006"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=361006"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}