“I'm With Protestors, But Law & Order Can't Be Affected”: Madras High Court Asks Manamadurai Custodial Death Protestors To Vacate NH

Justice Victoria Gowri thus constituted a peace committee consisting of three lawyers to facilitate peace talks with the protestors and persuade them to shift their protests from Manamadurai Rameswaram Highway to Manamadurai Old Bus Stand so that traffic movement in this key section of NH-87 in Tamil Nadu is restored.

The court directed the protestors to cooperate with the peace committee members in the larger interest of maintaining public order while ensuring that their grievances are appropriately ventilated.

"...While the right to peaceful protest is a constitutionally protected right, such protest cannot be permitted to cause undue hardship to the general public, particularly by obstructing national highways and essential public movement," the court said.

The case relates to the death of a 26-year-old male, allegedly due to injuries suffered by him while in custody. The State authorities have argued that the deceased had suffered injuries when he jumped from a railway bridge, after the police had secured him and another person in connection with a crime. The police have argued that the deceased was never taken to the police station.

The court had previously directed the Dean of Government Rajaji Hospital in Madurai to complete the post-mortem in the presence of the concerned judicial magistrate.

When the matter was taken up again on Wednesday, the counsel appearing for the father of the deceased urged the court to direct registering an FIR by including provisions of the SC//ST Act, since the deceased belonged to the SC/ST community. The Additional Advocate General submitted that a report from the Judicial Magistrate under Section 196(2) BNSS was being awaited, and after receiving the same, the charges would be altered, if necessary.

The AAG also submitted that certain groups have staged protests in the aftermath of the incident and were blocking the Manamadurai-Rameswaram National Highway. To this, the judge orally remarked that she was with the protestors, and only through such protests, the people would come to know on what is happening in the country.

“I'm personally not against the protests. Only through these protests, the people will come to know what is happening in a democracy. I stand with the people,” the court orally remarked.

When the AAG pointed out that the protestors were erecting temporary structures like a shamiyana and obstructing the free flow of traffic, the judge commented that such traffic diversion takes place even when the Prime Minister or Chief Minister visits.

“This happens when the Prime Minister or Chief Minister also passes. This is for the death of an Indian. Let the traffic be diverted,” the court remarked.

However, considering the maintenance of law and order, the court suggested that the protestors be given an alternate location. The court made it clear that the State should not use any force to remove the protestors from the National Highway, either physical or verbal.

“I am with the protestors. My heart beats for the protestors. But they should also know that the law and order should not be affected. The State should not deal with the protestors with iron hands,” the court orally remarked.

With respect to the investigation, the Court noted that the Community Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Manamadurai Taluk, certified that the deceased belonged to the Scheduled caste community. Taking note of the community certificate, the remand report along with the medical materials placed, the court opined that the materials prima facie disclose circumstances warranting the invocation of the SC/ST Act.

Noting that as per Section 18A of the SC/ST Act, no preliminary enquiry or prior approval was required for the registration of FIR, the court directed the Director General of Police to appoint an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police of CB-CID to takeover the investigation and proceed with the investigation by including appropriate provisions of the SC/ST Act.

Case Title: A Rajeshkannan v. The Home Secretary and Others

Case No: WP Crl (MD) 1392 of 2026