The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M observed that the petition was founded on unverified press reports and that the petitioner had not first approached the concerned authority with his grievance.

The "Freedom at Midnight, Celebrate Her' is  a programme conducted by the Department of Women and Child Development as part of the country's 80th Independence Day celebrations. 

The PIL was filed by a lawyer questioning the proposed event, scheduled to be held from 10 pm on August 14 to 1 am on August 15 along a stretch of about 3.5 kilometres from PMG Junction to Overbridge Junction, Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram.

The petitioner apprehended that men would be prohibited from entering the premises during the event. According to him, such a restriction would violate the guarantee of equality under Article 14, right to freedom of movement under Article 19)(1)(d) and right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

However, the Bench noted that the allegations in the writ petition were based on press reports produced as exhibits, without corroboration from the concerned State department.

The Court also took note of the fact that the petitioner had not approached the competent authority before moving the High Court. It reiterated the settled principle that a writ of mandamus ordinarily cannot be issued unless the person seeking the writ has first approached the public authority concerned with the grievance.

“We note that the petitioner has not approached the concerned authority and has chosen to seek an issuance of writ of mandamus. It is settled that no writ of mandamus will lie unless the aggrieved person approached the public authority with his grievance and right to move this Court by invoking PIL would approve only if there is a non-consideration or rejection of the said representation … pray for invocation of the legal right.” Court observed.

During the hearing, the Government Pleader clarified the nature of the proposed restriction. It was submitted that the restriction on the entry of men would apply only to the conclave, and that men's transportation and use of the premises would not otherwise be impeded.

The Court noted that, in light of the Government's submission, the apprehension raised in the petition was not supported by valid or substantiated material.

“We note that the averments made in the writ petition are not made based on any valid materials. The public interest litigation is not maintainable.” the Court held.

The Court thus closed the public interest petition.

Case Title: Adarsh S R v State of Kerala and Anr.

Case No: WP(PIL) 171/ 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 445

Counsel for Petitioner: R. Santhosh Mahadevan, C.R. Vijayakumaran Pillai, S. Santhy, Yayathi Vijayan, Mukesh Kumar Gandhi, Adwaith Suseel, R. Rahul Krishnan, Gopakumar D