Madras High Court orders release of lawyers, law students detained during Chennai sanitation protest

The Madras High Court on Thursday directed the release of six persons—four lawyers and two law students—detained by Tamil Nadu police during overnight protests against the Greater Chennai Corporation’s move to privatise conservancy services in two city zones.

A Bench of Justices M.S. Ramesh and V. Lakshminarayanan passed the order on a habeas corpus petition, observing:

“We are of the prima facie view that the detention of 4 lawyers and 2 law students by the police may be unlawful. It is also brought to our notice that all the arrested persons have not been produced before the concerned Magistrate’s Court for remand.”

The Court noted that police had arrested 930 people during the protest, including the six petitioners, and that the damage to buses—bearing “MTC Police” boards—appeared to have occurred after the accused were detained inside them.

While granting interim release, the Court imposed conditions, barring the six from giving media interviews or posting on social media until August 21, the next hearing date.

The protests, involving sanitation workers and others, took place near the Ripon Building—Greater Chennai Corporation headquarters—despite an earlier High Court direction to shift to another protest site. Police said protestors refused repeated requests to disperse, leading to their forcible removal to nearby mandapams (marriage halls).

The petitioner’s counsel, Advocate M. Radhakrishnan, alleged that the detentions were unlawful and that the arrested lawyers were assaulted. He argued there was no justification for a midnight arrest, likening the gathering to the peaceful Jallikattu protests.

The State, represented by Additional Advocate General J. Ravindran, denied the allegations, claiming that some protestors attacked police, damaged buses, and injured officials, including women. He maintained that the six individuals still in custody played a “serious role” in the disturbances and urged the Court to wait until supporting material could be placed by August 18.

The Bench initially raised a potential conflict of interest since the brother of one judge had appeared in a related PIL. However, all counsel present consented to the matter being heard.

The Court eventually ruled that custodial detention was not warranted at this stage, while accepting the State’s request to restrict the detainees from public statements pending further proceedings.