Madras High Court Imposes ₹50K Costs On 'Unusual' Plea Seeking Daily Protest At A Busy Public Junction Till 'World War' Ends

Justice Victoria Gowri also imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the man for filing frivolous petitions for his eccentric needs. The court noted that constitutional rights were meant to enlarge participation and could not be used to assert a right in total disregard of public order.

“Constitutional rights are meant to enlarge democratic participation, but they cannot be asserted in a manner that disregards public order, administrative reasonableness, and civic coexistence. The right to protest is protected; the right to insist upon a particular public junction for an indefinite recurring protest is not,” the court said.

The court also criticised the manner in which the man had refused to hold the protest at an alternative site suggested by the State administration, near statues of Dr. BR Ambedkar and Muthuramalinga Thevar Statue, solely because he saw them as icons of casteism. The court noted that both the leaders were historical figures and the petitioner could not be justified in making such remarks against them.

“This Court is constrained to observe that such remarks, made in the course of a judicial proceeding, are wholly unwarranted. 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,” the court said.

The petition was filed by S Prabhu against an order of the Inspector of Police, Thenkarai Police Station Theni District refusing to grant him permission to conduct daily “Ahimsa Path” from 10:00 am to 12:00 noon until the end of World War.

The petitioner claimed that peaceful protest was a part of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution and the State authorities could not defeat such a right on vague or general considerations.

The petitioner also argued that the proposed protest was non-violent, symbolic and only intended to promote public awareness on the cause of peace. The petitioner also argued that the State's order was mechanical, without any application of mind and without appreciating the significance of the protest.

The State, however, argued that the petitioner's request was not entirely rejected. It was submitted that the place at which the petitioner sought to conduct the daily protest was a busy junction and permitting such protest in a busy junction daily would inevitably cause hindrance to the free movement of the public and cause traffic congestion.

The State also pointed out that it had not imposed absolute prohibition on the petitioner's protest and had in fact suggested alternate locations, which was not acceptable to the petitioner. The State thus pointed out that the order did not infringe any constitutional rights, but merely regulated the manner and place of its exercise.

The court noted that the very fact that the State offered alternative locations would show that it was willing to balance the petitioner's fundamental right along with the larger public interest. The court added that the petitioner's insistence on the choice of place was contrary to the settled constitutional principles. The court made it clear that its jurisdiction could not be used 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,” the court said.

The court noted that the petitioner had not made out any case of illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety in the order, warranting interference of the court. Thus, the court imposed cost of Rs 50k on the petitioner for filing such frivolous petition, failing which he was to undergo simple imprisonment of one day.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. S. Prabhu (Party in person)

Counsel for Respondents: Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.), Mr.M.Muthumanikkam Government Advocate (Civil)

Case Title: S Prabhu v. The District Collector and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 132

Case No: W. P. Crl.(MD)No.1596 of 2026