Madras HC Allows ABVP To Hold Rally & Public Meeting After State Refused Permission For Events Connected To State Conference
The Madras High Court has granted permission to the Akhil Bharathiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) to conduct its rally today i.e. February 8, 2025, from Raja Muthiah Mandram to Gandhi Museum or in alternate choose Palanganatham roundana to conduct the meeting without causing any disturbance to the public.
The Writ Petition before the High Court was filed by the Petitioner-Parishad seeking quashing of the order of the Assistant Commissioner and a direction to the respondent-Authorities to permit the organisation to conduct a procession starting at Mannar Thirumalai Nayakkar College at 4 p.m., on February 8, 2025, and the procession ending at roundana of Pallanganatham, Madurai at about 5 PM. The Petitioner organisation also sought permission to conduct a public meeting.
The Single Bench of Justice P.Dhanabal held, “... in order to avoid traffic congestion and for the smooth conduct of rally the proposed route is not feasible. Since this Court already permitted to conduct hunger strike on 09.02.2025 at Palanganatham roundana this petitioner also can be permitted to conduct meeting at Palanganatham roundana”, the Bench said.
Senior Counsel Palanivelrajan represented the Peititoner while Additional Advocate General Veerakathiravan appeared for the Respondents.
Factual Background
The Akhil Bharathiya Vidyarthi Parishad founded in 1949 had decided to conduct State Conference in south Tamil Nadu from February 7, 2025 to February 9, 2025 at Madurai.The student lecturers professors, state office bearers, and social activists will participate and lead the conference. More than 300 students were to participate from various districts in the said procession. The public meeting was be conducted at the end of the procession. However, permission was denied to them for the said events.
Arguments
It was the case of the petitioner that the representation seeking permission to conduct the procession was mechanically rejected by the Authorities and the freedom of speech and right to assemble through dharnas, peaceful agitations, rallies and processions which are fundamental aspects of a democratic society were not considered.
The Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents, submitted that the proposed route from Mannar Thirumalai Nayakkar College to roundana of Pallanganatham is not permitted for any kind of procession and the same would create heavy traffic congestion. It was also submitted that the Respondent is ready to grant permission to the petitioner to conduct rally in the alternative places one from Raja Muthiah Mandram to Gandhi Museum and other from Tamukkam Junction to Gandhi Museum.
Reasoning
The Bench took note of the fact that the respondent did not totally deny the right of the petitioner to conduct a rally but they objected to the particular route on the ground that road work has been in progress and it would cause hindrance to the school and college students in the proposed route. On a perusal of the photographs on record, the Bench noticed that road extension work is under process.
The Court thus ordered, “Considering the paucity of time and since the rally was fixed on 08.02.2025 ie.,tomorrow and inorder to avoid traffic congestion as rightly suggested by the learned Additional Advocate General, this Court is of the view that it is appropriate to permit the petitioner to conduct rally and meeting from Raja Muthiah Mandram to Gandhi Museum on 08.02.2025 at 3.30 p.m. to 4.30 pm., in a peaceful manner or in alternate the petitioner can choose Palanganatham roundana to conduct meeting from 5.00 pm., to 6.30 pm., without causing any disturbance to the public.”
Thus, the Bench disposed of the Petition by modifying the impugned order and directing the Assistant Commissioner to take appropriate safety measures in accordance with law.
Cause Title: Akhil Bharathiya Vidyarthi Parishad v. The Commissioner of Police & Ors. (Case No.: W.P.(MD)No.3488 of 2025)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Counsel Palanivelrajan for M.Beema Rao
Respondents: Additional Advocate General Veerakathiravan, Additional Public Prosecutor S.Ravi