'State Can't Suppress Citizens': Madras High Court Questions Denial Of Permit For Bike Rally Against NEET, EWS

Justice Lakshminarayanan orally remarked that the organisation was only expressing its right by riding the bike and not indulging in any anti-social activities. When the State argued that there were chances of untoward incidents happening, the judge questioned if the mighty state was pleading helplessness. The court thus orally remarked that the State should permit the bike rally and not suppress the citizens.

“The mighty state is pleading helplessness? He (petitioner) has a fundamental right to protest. It's not only the speech you like, the thought you're against should also be protected. They're expressing their right by riding the bike. You're not providing the petrol. They're not indulging in anti-social activities. They should be permitted. State cannot suppress the citizens,” the court orally remarked.

The court also pointed out that when the F4 race was conducted in Chennai previously, the State did not have any objection and had even funded the event. The court wondered why the State was now preventing a bike rally, citing untoward road accidents.

To this, the State Public Prosecutor John Sathyan said that the event was carried out by the previous government and after a change in the government, its policies have also changed. The court, however, remarked that it was not bothered about the government, but only with the State.

“I'm not bothered about the government. I'm only bothered about the state,” the judge orally remarked.

Since the State sought additional time to file the counter, the court adjourned the hearing to August 17.

The party had approached the court through its Vice President Kali Poongundran after the State police denied permission for conducting the bike rally. The party argued that it had a right of speech and expression to assemble peacefully and without arms under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution. Thus, the party argued that the order of denial for propagating against NEET and EWS was against the Constitution.

The party submitted that in light of recent events, it had decided to campaign against NEET and the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) reservation in Tamil Nadu, while also advocating for the abolition of NEET.

During the previous hearing, the court had orally asked the party why it was precipitating the NEET issue. The court orally remarked that the protests in Delhi got over recently and instead of agitating the matter further, the party could approach the Supreme Court which was already seized of the matter. The court had then directed the State to file its counter.

When the matter came up for hearing on Tuesday, the State Prosecutor objected to the bike rally. He argued that the petitioners could form a human chain if they wanted to protest against the issue. The prosecutor also argued that the NEET issue was now over, the exam had been conducted and the counselling was scheduled to take place and thus the matter had become infructuous.

To this, the judge remarked that the State cannot dictate the petitioners on how to protest. The judge also pointed out that since the NEET exams were over, the State should not have any issue with allowing the protestors to raise the issue.

Case Title: Dravidar Kazhagam v The Director General of Police and Others

Case No: WP Crl 1934 of 2026