Archunan v. Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District.3.The Inspector of Police, Kariyapatti Police Station, Virudhunagar District.4.The Sub
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of the third respondent in Na
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
W.P. Crl(MD)No.120 of 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 11.06.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHIW.P.Crl. (MD)No.120 of 2025 Archunan ... PetitionerVs1.State represented by The Superintendent of Police, O/o the Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District.
The Deputy Superintendent of police, O/o the Deputy Superintendent of police, Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District.
The Inspector of Police, Kariyapatti Police Station, Virudhunagar District.
The Sub Inspector of Police, Aviyur Police Station, Virudhunagar District. ...RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. Crl(MD)No.120 of 2025 Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.03/Mike/Inspr/KPT/2025, dated 29.05.2025, on the file of the third respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the respondents 2 to 4 to grant permission to conduct demonstration with the demand to close red sand gravel quarry on 21.06.2025 at 10.00 to 1.30 pm or any other date, venue in front of Kariyapatti bus stand, Kariyapatti, Virudhunagar District. For Petitioner : Mr.S.VanchinathanFor Respondents : Mr.Antony Sahaya Prabhakar Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R The petitioner, claiming to be a member of the Tamil Nadu Ulavar Padhukkapu Sangam, with a grievance that some private individuals are attempting to set up a red sand gravel quarry in their village, which will lead to destruction of agricultural lands and rural livelihoods, has made a request to the respondent police for conducting a protest as against the said quarry operation on 30.05.2025, however, it was rejected by the respondent police, by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.03/Mike/Inspr/KPT/2025, dated 29.05.2025. Challenging the same, the petitioner has approached this Court.2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. Crl(MD)No.120 of 20252.Mr.Antony Sahaya Prabhakar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor takes notice for the respondents and submits that the request of the petitioner for conducting protest has been denied by the respondent police, on the ground of anticipating traffic hindrance.
He further submits that numerous temple festivals and the Hon'ble Chief Minister's program are scheduled on 31.05.2025 and 01.06.2025, which may also restrict police protection resources. 3. Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Indian Constitution guarantee the right to freedom of speech and expression, and the right to assemble peacefully by obtaining necessary permission, from the Law enforcement authority, which may impose certain restrictions to maintain public order and morality. The Honourable Supreme Court has suggested that the protests should be held in designated spaces to minimize disruption to public life and maintain order. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in Article 20 also protects the freedom of peaceful 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. Crl(MD)No.120 of 2025assembly and association. However, Law Enforcement Agencies have a responsibility to facilitate peaceful protests and ensure the safety of both protesters and the public.
Operative part
4. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.03/Mike/Inspr/KPT/2025, dated 29.05.2025 is hereby set aside. The respondent police is directed to consider the application of the petitioner and grant permission, by imposing regulations and conditions to maintain law and order. No costs. 11.06.2025Index: YesInternet: Yesvrn4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. Crl(MD)No.120 of 2025To1.The Superintendent of Police, O/o the Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District. 2. The Deputy Superintendent of police, O/o the Deputy Superintendent of police, Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District. 3. The Inspector of Police, Kariyapatti Police Station, Virudhunagar District. 4. The Sub Inspector of Police, Aviyur Police Station, Virudhunagar District.5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. Crl(MD)No.120 of 2025B.PUGALENDHI, J.vrnOrder made inW.P.Crl. (MD)No.120 of 202511.06.20256/6
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of the third respondent in Na
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.