Ease Of Participation In Democratic Gatherings Vital: Madras High Court Sets Aside Mandatory Vehicle Pass Condition For Hindu Munnani Conference
The Division Bench modified the condition imposed on the conference of the devotees of Lord Muruga, which the Single Judge refused to interfere with.
Justice G.R. Swaminathan, Justice K. Rajasekar, Madras High Court
While observing that ease of participation in democratic gatherings is vital, the Madras High Court has set aside a condition whereby vehicle pass was made mandatory during Hindu Munnani’s conference of the devotees of Lord Muruga to be held on 22 June 2025. The High Court has also held that the Assistant Commissioner can’t issue a blanket prohibitory order restraining entry of vehicles into Madurai city.
The Writ Appeal before the High Court was filed by the Zonal Secretary of the Hindu Munnani against an order passed on June 13, 2025. In the earlier order, the High Court had acknowledged the fact that the police were going to issue vehicle passes and therefore, they would have an idea about the persons and the number of vehicles likely to participate in the conference.
The Petitioner had first approached the Supreme Court against the order of the Single Judge, which SLP was withdrawn to approach the Division Bench.
The Division Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice K. Rajasekar held, “We are a republican democracy. Just as ease of doing business is important, the ease of participation in democratic gatherings is equally vital. The authorities ought not to come in the way of the citizens exercising their democratic right.”
“Once we find that the Assistant Commissioner could not have issued a blanket prohibitory order restraining the entry of vehicles into Madurai city without a vehicle pass for the conference participants, then we have to necessarily strike it down. We are of the view that the fundamental rights of the citizens cannot be interfered with without strong reasons which are totally absent in this case”, it added.
Senior Advocates N. Ananthapadmanabhan and K.P.S. Palanivelrajan represented the Appellant, while Additional Advocate General R. Baskaran represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
The case revolves around the Hindu Munnani’s conference of the devotees of Lord Muruga to be held on June 22, 2025, from 3:00 PM to 8:00 PM in the city of Madurai near Vandiyur Toll Plaza, Pandi Kovil Ring Road. The Permission for conducting the conference had been granted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Anna Nagar Range, Madurai Greater City (North); however, it was subject to 52 conditions. The organizers felt aggrieved by the seventh condition, which stated that no vehicle carrying the conference participants without a vehicle pass would be allowed to enter Madurai City limits. It also stated that such a vehicle pass must be obtained from the respective offices of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The applicants were to submit RC book, driving license and Aadhar card.
The petition filed against the said condition was dismissed by the Single Judge. When the appellant moved the Supreme Court, the appellant was granted liberty to avail a suitable remedy. It was in such circumstances that the Writ Appeal came to be filed before the High Court.
Reasoning
Referring to the condition under challenge, the Bench said, “ We fail to understand as to how such a condition could have been imposed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Anna Nagar Circle, Madurai in the first place. An Assistant Commissioner can have jurisdiction and sway only over her territorial limits. She could not have issued an order preventing entry of vehicles into Madurai city. Right to movement throughout the territory of India is guaranteed to all citizens under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India. It is open to any citizen to enter Madurai city in his/her vehicle and such a right cannot be interfered with by an Assistant Commissioner of Police.”
Addressing the contention of the Additional Advocate General that Section 41(1) of the City Police Act, 1888 confers such a power, the Bench stated, “The above provision can be understood to confer power on the officer concerned to deal with meetings and processions within his/her jurisdiction. No officer exercising power under this said provision can pass an order having operation beyond his/her territorial limits.”
As per the Bench, an Assistant Commissioner, Anna Nagar Range, does not have sway over the entire Madurai city, and she cannot forbid entry of motor vehicles into Madurai city. “The impugned condition has to go on the sole ground of jurisdiction”, it held.
The Bench was of the view that if the object of the Police authority is to gather the details and particulars about the vehicles entering the area where the event is to be held, it can be easily achieved by employing a very simple technology, such as scanning the license plates of vehicles. From this, information about the owners can be easily obtained. “In the case on hand, not more than 10,000 vehicles are expected and therefore, there is no need to impose such an onerous condition”, the Bench stated.
The Court also took note of the assurances given by the organizers that pucca arrangements have been made so that there is no stampede, which was witnessed in Bangalore, Delhi and other places recently. Thus, the Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned Condition.
Cause Title: M. Arasupandi v. The Commissioner of Police & Ors. (Case No.: W.A(MD)No.1673 of 2025)
Appearance
Appellant: Senior Advocates N. Ananthapadmanabhan, K. P.S. Palanivelrajan, Advocate M.Karthikeya Venkitachalapathy
Respondents: Additional Advocate General R.Baskaran, Additional Public Prosecutor T.Senthil Kumar