Madras High Court
WP CRL./2162/2026 of R.Hariramakrishnan Vs The Superintendent of Police on 26 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26-10-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
WP Crl. No. 2162 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA011896462026}
R.Hariramakrishnan
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Superintendent of Police
Namakkal District.
2.The Inspector of Police
Namakkal Police Station, Namakal
District.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER
To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction in the nature thereof Calling for the records relating to the impugned rejection order issued by the 2nd Respondent in Na.Ka.14/NKLPS/2026 dated 03.08.2026, and quashing the same as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional Directing the Respondents to accord permission and adequate police protection to conduct a peaceful demonstration at Poonga Salai, Namakkal, or any alternate suitable site designated by the Respondents, on a revised dated and time and Passing such further or other orders as thisCourt may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, and thus render justice.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. M. Arul
For Respondent(s):
Mr. S. Yogaraja Sekar
Counsel for Government of
Tamil Nadu (Crl. Side)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The petitioner is the District Secretary of a political party titled, "Puratchi Bharatham". He sought permission to conduct a protest at Poonga Salai, Namakkal. The said request came to be rejected. Hence, he is before this Court by way of the present writ petition.
2. When the matter came up, I called upon Mr. S. Yogaraja Sekar to receive notice and get instructions. Mr. S. Yogaraja Sekar, on instructions, reported that the grievance for which the petitioner seeks to hold an agitation is absolutely unfounded. According to him, the petitioner sought a direction that a complaint be registered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against a Member belonging to another political party. It is the plea of the petitioner that the said Member of the political party had made some derogatory remarks against the persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste Community.
3. Mr. S. Yogaraja Sekar adds that the conversation, which the petitioner refers to, was between two individuals, which had been recorded and uploaded by a third party. On coming to know about the contents thereof, the materials were pulled down from the website. He states that it is not a case for registration of a complaint under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
4. I have considered the submissions of both sides. I have gone through the records.
5. As to what is the content of the protest is not the concern of the Police. As long as the protest does not attract any of the provisions under Articles 19(2) and 19 (3) of the Constitution of India, any citizen of this Country, being aggrieved over any incident or event, can indulge in a protest. Whether the action of the Police is correct or not cannot be determined by the Police itself.
6. Furthermore, the petitioner is not seeking for a mandamus to register a complaint against the person, who is alleged to have made such derogatory remarks. All that the petitioner wants is to hold a protest, since he feels that derogatory marks against a Scheduled Caste Community had been made.
7. If the Police cannot go into the contents of the protest, then, unless and until it is violative of any other provision of law in force, the protest cannot be denied.
8. On the request of Mr. S. Yogaraja Sekar, the matter was kept aside in order to enable him to receive instructions. When it was taken up, Mr. S. Yogaraja Sekar states that he has been instructed by the second respondent stating that the petitioner can indulge in a sit-in protest at Poonga Salai, Namakkal on 02.11.2026 between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby quashed and this writ petition is ordered subject to the following conditions:
(a) The respondent shall pass an order, permitting the petitioner to indulge in a sit-in protest at Poonga Salai, Namakkal on 02.11.2026 between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m.;
(b) There should not be any kind of obscene slogans or vulgar dialogues during the protest by any of the participants.
(c) Double meaning songs or slogans should not be played so as to spoil the minds of students and youth.
(d) No dance or songs, touching upon any political party or religion or community or caste, shall be played.
(e) No flex boards in support of any political party or communal leader shall be erected at the premises of the protest.
(f) The protest shall not affect either the religious or communal harmony and shall be conducted without any discrimination based on caste.
(g) If there is violation of any one of the conditions imposed, the concerned police officer is at liberty to take necessary action, as per law and stop such protest forthwith; and (h) Similarly, the police is directed to stop the protest, if it is conducted beyond the permitted time limit. 26-10-2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No ab To
1. The Superintendent of Police Namakkal District.
2. The Inspector of Police Namakkal Police Station, Namakal District.
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN J. ab WP Crl. No. 2162 of 2026
26-10-2026