'Can't Stop People From Protesting, We're A Democracy': Bombay High Court In Plea Against Maratha Leader Manoj Jarange's 'March To Mumbai'
Right to agitate is a fundamental right, Court said.
The Bombay High Court on Friday questioned how it could restrain Maratha reservation activist Manoj Jarange-Patil from protesting, observing that India is a democracy and “right to agitate is a fundamental right”.A division bench of Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna was hearing a petition seeking directions in connection with the “March to Mumbai” call...
The Bombay High Court on Friday questioned how it could restrain Maratha reservation activist Manoj Jarange-Patil from protesting, observing that India is a democracy and “right to agitate is a fundamental right”.
A division bench of Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna was hearing a petition seeking directions in connection with the “March to Mumbai” call given by Patil, who recently ended his 12-day hunger strike demanding reservation for the Maratha community.
The petitioner, represented by Advocate Mayur Khandeparkar, submitted that Patil had stated in a video that he would enter Mumbai and continue his protest even if permission was denied.
“This man is presently in Jalna district, which is 500 km away from here,” Khandeparkar submitted.
The advocate also referred to an order passed by the High Court last year when protesters had allegedly blocked several roads in Mumbai. He pointed out that then Justice Ravindra Ghuge had to walk on the footpath to reach the High Court.
The Chief Justice, however, questioned the basis for seeking prohibitory orders when the protesters had not yet arrived in Mumbai.
“But they haven't come here now... These are just apprehensions. Merely on apprehensions and past experiences you cannot say like this. It is for the law and order maintaining agencies to look into this,” the Chief Justice said.
Khandeparkar then submitted that Patil had been making statements that he would enter Mumbai even without permission and had urged his supporters to block roads wherever they could if they were unable to reach Mumbai.
The bench however questioned how it could pass prohibitory orders merely on the basis of such apprehensions.
“Just because there were some bad experiences you cannot speculate. Such orders cannot be passed on speculations. But if situation arises, Court will look into it,” the Chief Justice observed.
The Court further emphasised the constitutional significance of the right to protest.
“But if someone is protesting... They know this is democracy. How can we stop someone from agitating or protesting? Why should we pass some orders based on your speculations and apprehensions and make some observations?” the Chief Justice said.
“We can only issue notice at this stage but we are not inclined to entertain this PIL or petition which is based on some speculations... We will not make any observations similar to what was made last year. Those were made because situation warranted but at present there's no situation as of now. Why should we apprehend anything? Even he is a responsible person. Right to agitate is a fundamental right,” he added.
Maharashtra Advocate General Dr Milind Sathe informed the Court that the Ganesh festival would commence on September 14 and pointed out that State had not granted permission for Patil's proposed protest.
The Court at this juncture asked the AG to clarify if the State is “incapable” and whether government would take care of any situation if things go out of hand?
On this, AG said that without permission, protest cannot happen at all and that the government will take care of every situation.
CJ responded: “Don't expect anything unless the real situation arrives. We can only say, that any protest or rally must happen in accordance with law... If the State isn't capable, High Court is capable to...”
The Court ultimately issued notice on the plea and directed State to provide all possible medical assistance to Patil to ensure nothing untoward happens to him due to hunger strike.
Case: Nilesh Dahanukar vs State [WP(ST)27163/2026)