Right To Protest Can't Be Nipped In The Bud: Madras High Court Allows Villagers To Hold Sit-In At Cremation Ground

Justice V Lakshminarayanan held that the villagers had a right to protest, which was a form of expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The court also observed that by indulging in the protest and bringing the pollution to the attention of the authorities, the villagers were implementing their fundamental duty under Articles 51A(a) & 51A(g) of the Constitution. The court remarked that such a protest could not be nipped in the bud.

“By indulging in a protest and bringing to the notice of the authorities the alleged pollution that has been caused by the Modern Rice Mill being run by an entity over which the State of Tamil Nadu exercises control, the petitioner and the residents of Sitharkadu village are merely implementing their fundamental duties under Articles 51A(a) & 51A(g) of the Constitution of India. Such a protest cannot be nipped in the bud,” the court said.

The court was hearing a petition filed by a man from the village against the refusal of permission to hold the protest. The petitioner informed the court that a rice mill, operated by Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, was causing immense air pollution in the village and reducing the ambient air quality in the area.

The petitioner informed the court that they had conducted protests earlier with respect to the difficulties they were facing, but the same did not yield any result. Thus, the villagers had decided to conduct the present protest in a crematorium. The petitioner submitted that they had given an intimation to the police informing that the protest was to happen on August 2, 2026, but hours before the protest, the permission was rejected.

The court also noted that the villagers had been protesting against the pollution caused by the rice mill since 20006 itself and several litigations had been filed in this regard. The court noted that the villagers had knocked on the doors of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board also, as the Effluent Treatment Plant near the Mill was not functional. However, the constitutional methods adopted by the villagers did not bear any fruit.

The court held that the villagers had come up with a unique form of protest to bring the aspects to the attention of the authorities, and this attempt could not be nullified on the basis of general apprehension. The court made it clear that as long as the protest was peaceful and did not create any problem, there was no ground to reject the same.

“In order to forcibly bring these aspects to notice, the residents of Sitharkadu Village have come up with a rather unique form of protest. They want to protest by staying inside the crematorium ground. To reject this attempt to draw the attention of the Government by way of a sit-in protest cannot be nullified on the basis of the general apprehension that the third respondent suffers from. As long as the protest is peaceful and does not create any problem, this Court finds absolutely no ground for to sustain the order of refusal of permission to indulge in a protest,” the court said.

Thus, the court was inclined to permit the villagers to indulge in the stay-in protest in the cremation ground, which was to commence from November 29. The court also directed the organisers to ensure that the protest is carried on peacefully and to supply a list of participants to the police in advance.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. A. Ganapatheeswaran

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Arun Anbumani Additional Public Prosecutor