WP CRL./2767/2026 of M.Anburaj Vs The State Rep by the District Collector on 15 October 2026

ORDER

Heard Mr.A.Ganapatheeswaran for the petitioner and Mr.Arun Anbumani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondents.

2. The petitioner is a resident of the village of Sitharkadu in Mayiladuthurai District. His grievance is that a rice mill, being operated by the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, is causing immense air pollution, thereby reducing the ambient air quality in that area. The petitioner stated that the residents of the village have been protesting against this pollution at least from 2006. Several litigations have been filed and disposed. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor states that a couple more are pending.

3. The petitioner had earlier indulged in a protest, in order to bring it to the notice of the authorities, as regards the difficulties that they are facing. The protest did not yield any result. Renewing their intention, they gave an intimation to the police stating that they wanted to indulge in a protest, "Ulliruppu Porattam", or a sit in demonstration within the cremation ground that is situated in Sitharkadu. The representation dated 07.07.2026 stated that the protest would be held on 02.08.2026.

4. Hours before the protest was to commence, the third respondent rejected the request of the petitioner. The petitioner approached the second respondent, who is the superior authority to the third respondent, as well as the first respondent, seeking review of the order. As nothing was forthcoming, the petitioner, on behalf of the residents of Sitharkadu village, is before this Court.

5. It is the plea of Mr.A.Ganapatheeswaran that the purpose of the stay-in protest, i.e. "Ulliruppu Porattam", in the cremation ground is to draw the attention of the Government to the pollution that is happening in Sitharkadu village on account of the rice mill being operated therein. He states that the petitioner and the residents of Sitharkadu village are going to indulge only in a peaceful protest and that they will not in any manner affect any rituals that might be performed on the days of protest.

6. Mr.Arun Anbumani reports that, though the police do not have any serious objections to grant police protection, but they fear that it will create a law and order issue.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. I have carefully gone through the entire records.

8. The right to protest is a form of expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Furthermore, under Article 19(1)(b), the citizens of this

Country are given the right to assemble peacefully, albeit without arms. The grounds on which such expression and assembly can be prevented are set forth under Articles 19(2) and 19(3). By indulging in a protest and bringing to the notice of the authorities the alleged pollution that has been caused by the Modern Rice Mill being run by an entity over which the State of Tamil Nadu exercises control, the petitioner and the residents of Sitharkadu village are merely implementing their fundamental duties under Articles 51A(a) & 51A(g) of the Constitution of India. Such a protest cannot be nipped in the bud.

9. In addition, by virtue of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India and another, 2018 INSC 635, a protest indulged in by citizens operates as an escape valve for the pressure that builds up in society. In the event, the escape valve is closed, it could lead to an explosive situation. Bearing these constitutional principles in mind, when this Court approaches the impugned order, it is clear that the constitutional methods that have been adopted by the petitioner have not borne any fruit. They have approached the Court and obtained orders and have also knocked on the doors of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. They allege that the Effluent Treatment Plant, situated within the Modern Rice Mill, is not functional and other pollution arrest measures that are said to be in place suffer from extremely poor housekeeping.

10. In order to forcibly bring these aspects to notice, the residents of Sitharkadu Village have come up with a rather unique form of protest. They want to protest by staying inside the crematorium ground. To reject this attempt to draw the attention of the Government by way of a sit-in protest cannot be nullified on the basis of the general apprehension that the third respondent suffers from. As long as the protest is peaceful and does not create any problem, this Court finds absolutely no ground for to sustain the order of refusal of permission to indulge in a protest.

11. Consequently, the impugned order is quashed and the writ petition stands ordered with the following directions:

(i) The third respondent shall permit the villagers of the Sitharkadu to indulge in a stay-in, i.e., “Ulliruppu Porattam” at the Sitharkadu cremation ground.

(ii) The protest will commence from 29.11.2026.

(iii) The organisers will be responsible for ensuring that the protest is carried on in a peaceful manner.

(iv) The organisers shall supply the list of participants to the police in advance.

(v) In case the police inform the organisers that there are any mischievous elements, who could take advantage of the protest and create a law and order problem, the organisers shall exclude them from the list of participants.

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J. KJ

(vi) During the course of the protest, in case any rituals or obsequies take place in connection with any death that has occurred, the participants shall ensure that their protest gives way to such ceremonies being conducted. 15-10-2026 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No kj To

1. The District Collector Mayiladuthurai District, Mayiladuthurai-609 001.

2. The Superintendent of Police Mayiladuthurai District, Mayiladuthurai-609 001.

3. The Inspector of Police Mayiladuthurai Police Station, Mayiladuthurai-609 001.