Protesters Of A Particular Religion Cannot Misuse Freedom Of Speech & Expression: Madras HC Dismisses Bharath Hindu Munnani’s Plea Seeking Permission For Religious Procession

The Court refused to grant permission to the Deputy District President (Petitioner) of the BHM to conduct a religious procession carrying the ‘Divine Spear’ (Vel) from Egambarashwarar Temple to Sri MuthuKumarasami Kovil Devasthanam. The Court held that granting such permission would “affect communal harmony prevalent in that area.”

A Single Bench of Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan held, “If a particular religion is allowed to conduct a procession that too by carrying the “Divine Spear” (Vel) and singing of their devotional songs, it would affect communal harmony prevalent in that area. Though the constitution enshrines Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution of India, it cannot be misused by the protesters by a particular religion people by endangering Sovereignty, Unity and Integrity of our Country.”

Advocate G Mutharasu represented the Petitioner, while State Public Prosecutor Hasan Muhamed Jinnah appeared for the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The proposed procession route included several commercial streets in Chennai, such as Rasappa Street, Nainiyappa Street, Pethu Street, and Thanga Salai.

The Petitioner claimed to be a devotee of Lord Murugan and alleged that a group of Islamic people were claiming Madurai Thiruparankundram mountain as theirs. Therefore, the Petitioner and his members intended to take out a procession to condemn the action of “other religion” by a procession with a “Divine Spear.”

Arguments By Parties

The Petitioner submitted that he had applied for permission on January 29, 2025, but had not received any response from the authorities. He contended that the refusal of permission violated his fundamental right under Article 25 of the Constitution.

The Respondents opposed the Petition, arguing that allowing the procession could lead to communal tension. They cited prior incidents where similar gatherings had resulted in public disorder and referenced a resolution passed between religious groups before the Revenue Divisional Officer to maintain peace.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court examined records indicating that religious disputes over the Thiruparankundram hill had been adjudicated up to the Privy Council, affirming that both Hindu and Muslim communities had established rights over specific portions.

The Court further referred to past incidents, including a protest on February 4, 2025, in Madurai, where inflammatory speeches were allegedly made, leading to the registration of FIRs against individuals under Sections 192, 196(1)(a), 196(1)(b), 352, 353(1)(a), and 353(1)(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The Court found that the Petitioner’s request could not be considered in isolation from these developments.

“During demonstration at Madurai, already two cases have been registered on the allegation that wantonly giving provocation with an intent to cause riot. They also promoted enmity between different groups, on the ground of religion and race by committing an act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religion which disturbs the public tranquility,” the Bench noted.

Consequently, the Court ordered, “Therefore, the respondents shall not permit any form of protest that disrupts public peace and harmony. The respondents have to take necessary measures to ease religious tensions and restore the previously prevailing order and harmony.”

The Bench also held, “So far, Hindu, Muslim and Jain have cohabited the hill peacefully, respecting the wishes of each other. In fact, the Unity in Diversity is the strength of our nation and the Government has to maintain harmony among all the communities and religion. Therefore, the Government shall ensure that religious sentiments and beliefs of any community will not be harmed in any manner and shall not allow anybody to affect the peace and harmony.”

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition.

Cause Title: S.Yuvaraj v. The Commissioner of Police & Anr. (W.P.No.4732 of 2025)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate G.Mutharasu

Respondents: State Public Prosecutor Hasan Muhamed Jinnah; Additional Public Prosecutor A.Damodaran

Click here to read/download the Order