Justice V Lakshminarayanan closed the plea after taking note of the State's submission that the police officials on the route of the rally have granted permission.

“The State Public Prosecutor submits that the police officials situated on route of the rally have all granted permission to the petitioner to take the bike rally. His statement is recorded. As the relief sought for by the petitioner is granted, this Writ Petition stands closed,” the court said.

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 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 was being heard, the State Public Prosecutor initially submitted that the petitioners could form a human chain if needed and objected to a bike rally. To this, the judge had orally remarked that the State could not dictate how the petitioners should protest and could not suppress the citizens.

The court remarked that the organisation was only expressing its right by riding the bike and not indulging in any anti-social activities. The court highlighted that the State had a duty to protect thoughts which it did not support also.

Later, when the matter was again taken up, the State submitted that it was not against the principles for which the rally was being carried out and that it had also passed a resolution in the Assembly against NEET. However, when the State raised concern against the protest against EWS, the court orally remarked that the police should not be concerned with the content of a protest and are bound to protect it, as long as it doesn't fall under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, which permits reasonable restrictions.

The State then informed the court that it was willing to permit the rally if logistic details, including bike details, were provided, so that the State could arrange bandobast. The court had then directed the petitioners to provide details of the bike.

After the State's direction, the petitioner organisation provided the details of the bike, the route through which the rally was to be taken and the time of the rally. The State informed that the same were considered and necessary permissions had been granted.

Considering the same, the plea was closed.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. J. Ravindran Senior Counsel for Mr. M. Senniappan

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. R. John Sathyan State Public Prosecutor Assisted by Mr. R. Ganesh Kumar Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Crl.Side)

Case Title: Dravidar Kazhagam v The Director General of Police and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 403

Case No: WP Crl No 1934 of 2026