R.Mohan vs The Commissioner Of Police
2025 Latest Caselaw 8594 Mad

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 8594 Mad
Judgement Date : 14 November, 2025

Madras High Court

R.Mohan vs The Commissioner Of Police on 14 November, 2025

Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira

Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira

                                                                                       WP Crl. No. 654 of 2025




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED: 14-11-2025

                                                         CORAM

                      THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

                                             WP Crl. No. 654 of 2025
                R.Mohan
                S/o.E.Rathnam, State Treasurer,
                Uzhaipor Urimai Iyakkam, Having its
                registered office at No.19/C,
                Mariamman Kovil Street,
                Kalyanapuram, Ambattur,
                Chennai - 600 058.                  Petitioner


                                                              Vs
                1. The Commissioner of Police
                Greater Chennai Police, Veppery,
                Chennai - 600 007.

                2.The Joint Commissioner of Police,
                Greater Chennai Police-East Zone,
                Egmore, Chennai.

                3.Inspector of Police (Law and Order),
                G-2, Periamet Police Station, Periamet,
                Chennai - 600 003.

                4. The Commissioner of Police
                Avadi Commissionerate, Avadi,
                Chennai – 600 054




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis              ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 08:42:40 pm )
                                                                                         WP Crl. No. 654 of 2025



                5. The Inspector of Police
                T-1 Ambattur Police Station,
                Avadi Commissionerat, Chennai
                (Respondents 4 and 5, Suo motu                    Respondent(s)
                impleaded vide instant order)


                PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
                issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the Order in
                No.684/Tha.P.2/E.Ko.102/2025 dated 18.08.2025 passed by the Respondent
                No.2, quash the same and consequently direct the Respondent No.1 to grant
                permission to the petitioner to conduct an indefinite peaceful protest at
                Rajarathinam Stadium, Chennai.

                                  For Petitioner :        Mr.K.Bharathi
                                                          for Mr.B.Mohan
                                  For Respondents:        Mr.E.Raj Thilak
                                                          Additional Public Proseucutor

                                                            ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed to quash the order in

nd No.684/Tha.P.2/E.Ko.102/2025, dated 18.08.2025 passed by the 2 respondent,

st and consequently direct the 1 respondent to grant permission to the petitioner

to conduct an indefinite peaceful protest at Rajarathinam Stadium, Chennai.

2. Mr.K.Bharathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, by relying on the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramlila Maidan Incident Vs.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 08:42:40 pm )

Home Secretary, Union of India & Ors., reported in 2012 (5) SCC 1, would

submit that the right to assemble to conduct a demonstration or an agitation are

basic features of the our democratic system. However, the petitioner's request to

conduct Dharna had been rejected. Hence, the present petition is filed.

3. Per contra, Mr.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

appearing for the respondents, by relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court

in Amit Sahni vs. Commissioner of Police and Others (2020) 10 SCC 439,

would submit that though there is a right given to the citizens under the

Constitution of India to protest against the Government action, it needs to be

balanced with other contrasting fundamental rights and the same is subjected to

reasonable restrictions. He would further submit that the petitioner had sought

permission to conduct an indefinite fast at Rajarathinam Stadium and

considering that allowing to conduct indefinite fast would cause unnecessary

hardship and disturbance to the general public, the respondents have rejected the

petitioner's request.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 08:42:40 pm )

4. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that the petitioner organisation has decided to conduct a peaceful protest

wherein four members of the petitioner organisation have decided to observe

indefinite fast inside their office premises at No.19/C, Mariamman Kovil Street,

Kalyanapuram, Ambattur, Chennai - 600058 and 50 of their members will also

assemble at the office premises, subject to the conditions that may be imposed

by this Court. Hence, he would pray that appropriate directions may be issued to

the jurisdictional police to ensure that permission is granted and the protest of

the petitioner is conducted in a peaceful manner.

5. Since the petitioner has sought permission to conduct a peaceful protest

at Ambattur, this Court suo motu impleads the Commissioner of Police, Avadi

and the Inspector of Police, Ambattur, as they are necessary parties to the

proceedings and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor takes

notice for the impleaded respondents. He would submit that subject to the

petitioner undertaking to comply with the conditions imposed by this Court, the

respondents are ready to accord permission.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 08:42:40 pm )

6. In the case of Amit Sahni (supra), it has been held that the right to

protest against Government action needs to be balanced with other contrasting

fundamental rights and is subject to reasonable restrictions, as per Articles

19(2) and 19(3) of the Constitution of India.

7. Now that the petitioner has agreed to conduct peaceful protest at his

office, this Court directs the impleaded respondents viz., The Commissioner of

Police, Avadi and the Inspector of Police, Ambattur, to grant permission to the

petitioner/association to conduct indefinite fast inside their office premises in

the address stated in paragraph 4, supra, subject to the following conditions:

i. The four named persons viz., Mrs.Jenova,

Mrs.Bharathi, Mrs. Geetha and Mrs.Vasanthi, will be

observing the indefinite fast.

ii. In the event of any of them withdrawing the

indefinite fast, they can be substituted by any other

member(s). However, the number of persons observing the

indefinite fast shall not be more than four persons.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 08:42:40 pm )

iii. The number of persons visiting the petitioner

association shall be restricted to 50.

iv. The petitioner shall not put up any temporary

structure like Pandhal/shamiana, chairs, etc. outside the

association premises.

v. There shall not be any disturbance to the

residents of the locality.

vi. The petitioner shall permit a Government doctor

to visit and review the health of the fasting members on a

daily basis, both in the morning and evening hours.