Madras High Court Seeks State's Response To Dravidar Kazhagam's Plea For Bike Rally Against NEET, EWS
Why precipitate the NEET issue?, Court orally remarked during the hearing.
The Madras High Court has sought the State's response on a plea filed by the Dravidar Kazhagam party seeking permission to conduct a bike rally against NEET and EWS in the State of Tamil Nadu.
When the matter came up for hearing before Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan, the court directed the State to file its counter affidavit and adjourned the case to August 11.
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.
It was submitted that since the propaganda was planned all over Tamil Nadu, a representation was sent to the Director General of Police on July 18, seeking permission. It was submitted that the DGP forwarded the same to the Additional Director General of Police, which was forwarded to the same DGP. The DGP then directed the concerned police officer to consider the representation. However, despite the same, when a representation was given to the concerned police officer, the same was denied.
The party argued that there cannot be a complete ban or prohibition on expressing the views of citizens or people. The party argued that a total prohibition on the program is against the constitutional mandate and thus the order is liable to be set aside.
When the matter came up for hearing, the judge 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.
Senior Advocate J Ravindran, representing the party, submitted that it was willing to abide by any condition imposed on it and if there was any violation, the State could take action. He, however, stressed that the party should not be prevented from holding the rally.
The court then directed the State to file its counter and decided to hear the case next Tuesday.
Case Title: Dravidar Kazhagam v The Director General of Police and Others
Case No: WP Crl 1934 of 2026