‘Indefinite’ protest until ‘World War’ ends: Madras High Court slams ‘eccentric’ plea with Rs 50,000 fine

“Judicial time is a valuable public resource. Every frivolous or misconceived invocation of constitutional jurisdiction results in the diversion of time from genuinely deserving litigants. The extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is meant to remedy real and substantial injustice and not to vindicate eccentric insistences dressed up as constitutional claims,” the court said on March 24.

Indefinite protest against war places an administrative burden on the authorities, said the court. (File image)

Court’s analysis: Rights yes, absolutism no

• The right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to assemble peaceably and without arms are undoubtedly cherished constitutional freedoms.
• A peaceful protest, when undertaken within the framework of law, is a legitimate democratic expression.
• However, such rights are not absolute in character.
• The constitutional scheme itself recognises that these freedoms are subject to reasonable restrictions in the interests of sovereignty, integrity, public order, and orderly civic administration.
• The right to protest cannot therefore be elevated into a right to occupy any place, at any time, for any duration, solely at the will of the person asserting it.

Petitioner’s case: ‘Right to peaceful protest’

• S Prabhu, claiming to be a social activist, argued that his protest was non-violent and symbolic, aimed at promoting global peace.
• Appearing in person, Prabhu sought directions to allow him to conduct a daily “Ahimsa Path” protest from 10 am to 12 noon- indefinitely, “until the World War ends.”

• The denial of permission violated his fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b).
• The state had a duty to facilitate peaceful dissent rather than suppress it
• He further insisted that permission must be granted only at the location chosen by him, claiming symbolic relevance.

Court not to enforce personal obstinacy

• It is one thing to seek judicial review against an arbitrary state action.
• It is another to invite the court to compel the administration to permit an indefinite daily protest at a busy public junction, despite the existence of reasonable alternatives.
• The writ jurisdiction of this court cannot be converted into a mechanism to enforce personal obstinacy under the guise of constitutional liberty.

Indeterminate nature of request

• In the case on hand, the petitioner seeks permission not for a one-time event or a limited-duration representation, but for a daily recurring protest extending indefinitely “until the World War ends”.
• The expression employed in the prayer itself reveals the open-ended and indeterminate nature of the request.
• Such a request, by its very nature, places an impossible administrative burden on the authorities and disregards the need for regulation of public spaces.

• A careful perusal of the impugned order shows that the rejection is founded upon the practical consideration that the particular junction chosen by the petitioner is a busy location and that any daily protest at such a place would hinder the general public.
• This court finds that such reasoning is neither arbitrary nor extraneous.
• Regulation of assemblies in busy public junctions falls squarely within the domain of lawful administrative control exercised in the interest of public convenience and safety.

No disparaging generalisations of personalities

• Dr B R Ambedkar occupies an exalted place in the constitutional history of this nation as the principal architect of the Constitution of India and as a towering voice for social justice, equality, and human dignity.
• Likewise, Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar is remembered in the public sphere as a significant historical and political figure.
• A litigant cannot be permitted to justify his refusal of reasonable alternatives by making disparaging generalisations about personalities of such public importance.
• During the course of hearing, when this court called upon the petitioner to indicate whether he would be willing to consider an alternate venue, it was represented that the police were prepared to permit the proposed programme at alternative places, namely, near the Dr B R Ambedkar Statue at Periyakulam or near the Muthuramalinga Thevar Statue at Vadakarai, Periyakulam.

• This is not a case where the administration has altogether denied the petitioner any opportunity to conduct his programme.
• The difficulty arose only because the petitioner categorically refused to hold the protest at either of the suggested alternate places.
• His refusal was not on grounds of physical inconvenience or logistical impossibility, but on the assertion that both Dr B R Ambedkar and Muthuramalinga Thevar had become icons of casteism and that he therefore did not wish to conduct his protest in the vicinity of their statues.
• This court is constrained to observe that such remarks, made in the course of a judicial proceeding, are wholly unwarranted.

State’s stand: Public order can’t be disrupted

• Government Advocates M Sakthi Kumar and M Muthumanikkam, appearing for the Theni district administration and the police countered that the proposed venue for the protest against war was a busy junction.
• A daily, indefinite protest against war would lead to traffic congestion and public inconvenience.
• The petitioner was not denied protest rights against war or otherwise, but was offered alternative venues
• The authorities maintained that the restriction was regulatory, not prohibitory, and necessary to maintain public order.

Petition branded ‘frivolous’, ‘eccentric’

• Dismissing the plea, the court held that there was no illegality or arbitrariness in the police decision.
• The petitioner failed to show any violation of constitutional rights.
• The litigation was “lacking in bona fides”.
• The court observed that Article 226 jurisdiction cannot be invoked to enforce “personal obstinacy.”

Exemplary costs, warning

• Taking note of the waste of judicial time, the court imposed Rs 50,000 as costs, directing payment to a government school within one week.
• It added a rare deterrent that if he fails to pay, he will have to undergo one day of simple imprisonment.
• The court underscored, “Every frivolous invocation of constitutional jurisdiction diverts time from genuinely deserving litigants.”