The Madras High Court ruled that political rallies cannot be denied solely due to concerns about traffic disruptions. The court emphasized the importance of upholding democratic rights, including the right to hold political gatherings. However, it also urged political parties to cooperate with authorities to minimize inconvenience to the public during such events.
Tamil Nadu: The Madras High Court permitted BJP President J P Nadda’s rally in Tiruchirapalli, Tamil Nadu, asserting that traffic disruptions alone do not justify denying permission. The district secretary sought approval for a rally spanning from Gandhi Market Arch to Malaikottai in the Tiruchirappalli Constituency, Tamil Nadu.
Justice K Murali Shankar’s bench remarked,
“The mere presence of traffic disruptions and impediments to free movement of people is not sufficient grounds for denying permission.”
Read Also:Madras HC junks plea agaisnt OPS expulsion
The case involved a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner requested a writ of certiorari and mandamus to challenge the refusal of permission for a rally scheduled on 07.04.2024 in the Tiruchirapalli Constituency.
The rally, attended by the National President of the Bharatiya Janatha Party, aimed to campaign for the upcoming Lok Sabha Election. During the proceedings, Mr. Niranjan S. Kumar, representing the petitioner, strongly argued for permission to be granted. He contended that the reasons cited for denial, such as heavy traffic and temporary vehicle registration, not valid. Mr. Kumar also cited previous instances where similar vehicles used without issue during political campaigns in Tamil Nadu.
On the opposing side, Mr. R. Baskaran, the learned Additional Advocate General, appeared for the first respondent, defending the denial of permission. He justified the decision based on concerns about heavy traffic caused by numerous businesses in the area. Similarly, Mr. T. Senthilkumar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, represented respondents 2 and 3, supporting the arguments made by the first respondent.
The Appellant accepted an alternative route offer from Kannappa Hotel to E.S.I. Hospital, with the condition that authorities, including the respondents, provide police protection and assistance. The Court instructed the respondents to approve the rally along the agreed alternative route, starting from Kannappa Hotel and ending at E.S.I. Hospital.
Read Also: “Hang Our Heads In Shame” : Madras HC
Additionally, the Court mandated providing adequate police protection with specific conditions.
Ultimately, the Court granted the petition.
Advocate Niranjan S. Kumar represented the appellant, while Additional Advocate General R. Baskaran represented the respondent.
Read Judge ment : [Rajasekaran v. Assistant Election Officer]