The Madras High Court, on Friday (August 14), permitted the Bharatiya Janata Party to conduct a "Tricolour Flag Yatra" in Coimbatore city in connection with the Independence Day celebrations.[2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 387]

Though the BJP had initially proposed to conduct the rally on August 13, the State denied permission for the rally at the proposed location. On Friday, after deliberations, the BJP agreed to conduct the rally at another location, which had been designated for public meetings (involving more than 5,000 participants) by the District Collector.

While disposing of the plea, Justice V Lakshminarayanan remarked that the court was shocked that the State had denied permission for a rally carrying the national flag on the grounds of law and order situation. The court added that irrespective of the party, everyone was bound to respect the flag. The court added that if someone wanted to respect the flag, the police should permit and join them, instead of obstructing the same.

"Irrespective of the party to which one belongs, as long as he is under the Flag, he is bound to respect it. The denial of permission to carry on a yatra on grounds of law and order has shocked the conscience of the court. The police also function under the flag. As much as it is the duty of the petitioner, his party and every citizen of Coimbatore to respect the flag, the police also should respect the flag. If someone wants to respect the flag, instead of obstructing, the police should permit the same and, in fact, join them in respecting the flag," the court observed.

While the court closed the plea after taking note of the agreement for new location, it added that in future, the police should not make the citizens come to court just for paying homage to the country and its flag.

"It is hoped that in future police will ensure that people are not made to approach the court for paying homage to their nation and its flag," the court said.

When the State argued that permission was denied considering the law and order situation and the inconvenience that may be caused to the residents of the area, the court remarked that such citizens should be reminded that the right to reside also exists because of the flag. 

"I find it amusing that the state believes that if a group of persons gathers to pay homage to their state and its flag, it might cause inconvenience to some people. Perhaps the police could remind the people who might be inconvenienced that the right to reside also exists because of the flag," the court said.

The court was hearing a plea filed by the District President of the Bharatiya Janata Party, Coimbatore City, against the State's refusal to grant permission for conducting a "Tricolour Flag Yatra" in connection with the Independence Day celebration. The party had argued that the proposed yatra was a peaceful patriotic programme intended to promote national pride, nationalism, respect for the National flag and to honour the sacrifice of freedom fighters and members of the armed forces. 

When the matter came up for hearing, the court criticised the state for refusing permission for a procession carrying the national flag. The court orally remarked that Coimbatore was the land og Tiruppur Kumaran, a freedom fighter who died holding the Indian flag while protesting against British rule. The court said that it was sad to see the state refuse permission to a party to carry the national flag in such a place.

"Police saying the Indian Flag should not be carried? Without the flag, you'll not have your rights. It's sad. Land of Tiruppur Kumaran, who lost his life for carrying a flag, and you're not letting them carry the flag? Even in Kashmir, where there were protests, they're carrying flags," the court remarked.

"Or let the officer declare that Coimbatore is not part of India. Declare that it's part of Pakistan or Afghanistan and that carrying a flag is a sin. Irrespective of political colour, we should be proud of our flag," the court added orally.

Pointing to another recent case, where the State had denied permission for a bike rally by the Dravidar Kazhagam party, the court orally asked if the State was only permitting rallies by the ruling Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam party and denying permission to other parties like Dravidar Kazhagam and the BJP.

"DK party shouldn't do a rally, BJP shouldn't carry flags, so only TVK should be allowed to rally?" the court asked.

To this, the Assistant Public Prosecutor Arun Anbumani said that the State was not taking sides. He submitted that the State had not rejected the representation but had only asked the party to conduct the procession at some other location which was earmarked for such purpose. He submitted that while administering a district, the State had to consider the law and order situation. 

The court wondered what law and order situation would arise if people wanted to carry the national flag.

"Law and order problem for carrying the national flag? Even in J&K where the national flag could not be raised, they're now raising national flags," the court orally remarked.

The prosecutor then took the court through an order of the High Court which had laid down the Standard Operating Procedure to be followed while conducting public meetings. He submitted that last year, a party had approached the court after being denied permission for a political meet and while the court was considering the issue, an unfortunate event had occurred. He submitted that following the unfortunate event, the pending matter was placed before the division bench headed by the Chief Justice and, as per the court's order, the State had held an all-party meet and brought in SOP for public meetings. 

The APP submitted that as per the SOP, whenever there was a public meeting of more than 5000 members, the State had to consider the law and order situation. He further submitted that the party was seeking permission to conduct the rally at a populated place and there were chances that an untoward incident may occur. He added that the State had denied permission in the specific area only to prevent such an untoward incident. 

"When we administer a district, we need to take care of some law and order issues. We're only saying that there is another area that has been identified, so consider it," the APP argued.

The court then directed the party to communicate with the Assistant Commissioner of Police, who was present in the court, and suggest another place for conducting the rally.

When the case was again taken up in the afternoon session, the petitioner informed the court that they have agreed to conduct the rally in a place proposed by the State. Considering the same, the court permitted the party to conduct the rally on August 18, between 4 pm and 7 pm.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr A Kumaraguru

Counsel for Respondents: Mr Arun Anbumani, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

Case Title: J Ramesh Kumar v State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 387

Case No: WP 2089 of 2026