The Madras High Court addressed protests that erupted following the custodial death of a 26-year-old man in Manamadurai and observed that while the right to protest is a constitutionally protected right, demonstrations cannot be allowed to disrupt public order and essential public movement. During the hearing, the Court stated that although it recognized the concerns of the protesters regarding the alleged custodial death, blocking a national highway and causing significant inconvenience to the public could not be permitted. The Court emphasized that protests must be conducted in a manner that balances the right to express grievances with the need to maintain law and order and ensure that public life is not severely affected.
The Court made these observations while hearing a petition related to the death of the young man who allegedly suffered fatal injuries while in police custody. The incident had triggered widespread protests in the region, with groups of people gathering along the Manamadurai-Rameswaram National Highway and blocking traffic in order to demand accountability and action from the authorities. These demonstrations led to major disruptions in traffic movement along the highway, which is an important route for transportation in the area. According to submissions made before the Court, protesters had erected temporary structures and set up tents along the highway, which further obstructed the flow of vehicles and caused inconvenience to commuters and residents.
During the hearing, the Court acknowledged that citizens have the right to protest and raise their voices against perceived injustice. However, the Court also stressed that this right cannot be exercised in a way that completely obstructs essential public infrastructure such as national highways. The Court pointed out that public movement cannot be indefinitely blocked and that authorities must ensure that transportation routes remain accessible for the general public. At the same time, the Court indicated that it was not opposed to the protest itself but was concerned about the manner in which it was being carried out.
In an effort to address the situation while respecting the concerns of the protesters, the Court suggested that the demonstration be moved to another location where it would not obstruct traffic. Specifically, the Court proposed that the protest could be shifted to the Manamadurai Old Bus Stand area. According to the Court, relocating the protest to this site would allow the demonstrators to continue expressing their grievances while ensuring that traffic along the national highway could resume normally. This suggestion was made as part of an attempt to find a balanced solution that would protect both the right to protest and the interests of the general public.
To facilitate dialogue and encourage a peaceful resolution of the issue, the Court decided to constitute a peace committee. The committee was to consist of three lawyers who would initiate discussions with the protesters and attempt to persuade them to relocate their protest to the alternate venue suggested by the Court. The formation of the committee was intended to create a channel for communication between the protesters and the authorities, allowing concerns to be addressed through dialogue rather than confrontation. The Court directed the protesters to cooperate with the peace committee and participate in discussions aimed at resolving the situation.
During the proceedings, the Court also made remarks regarding the broader role of protests in a democratic society. It acknowledged that protests often play an important role in bringing attention to significant issues and informing the public about matters of concern. The Court observed that such demonstrations can help highlight problems and encourage public awareness. However, it reiterated that the exercise of the right to protest must be balanced with the rights of others, including the public’s right to move freely and access essential services without unnecessary disruption.
The Court further addressed concerns raised by the authorities regarding the structures that had been set up by the protesters along the highway. Temporary installations such as tents had reportedly been erected at the protest site, contributing to the obstruction of traffic movement. While acknowledging that such arrangements sometimes occur during protests, the Court emphasized that the larger objective should be to ensure that demonstrations do not cause prolonged or severe inconvenience to the public.
At the same time, the Court cautioned the State authorities against using force to disperse the protesters. It made it clear that the government should not resort to coercive measures, whether physical or verbal, to remove those participating in the demonstration. The Court stressed that the situation should be handled with restraint and sensitivity, particularly because the protests were linked to allegations of a custodial death. According to the Court, while maintaining law and order is an important responsibility of the State, the authorities must also respect the rights of citizens who are protesting to raise concerns about a serious incident.
The hearing also addressed issues related to the investigation into the custodial death itself. Counsel appearing for the father of the deceased submitted that provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act should be invoked in the case, noting that the deceased belonged to a Scheduled Caste community. In response to this submission, the Court took note of the community certificate issued by the Tahsildar of Manamadurai Taluk confirming the deceased’s caste status. The Court also examined materials placed before it, including the remand report and medical documents related to the case.
After reviewing the materials presented during the hearing, the Court observed that there were prima facie circumstances suggesting that provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act should be invoked. The Court noted that under the relevant provision of the Act, the registration of a case does not require any preliminary inquiry or prior approval. In view of this, the Court directed that the investigation be transferred to the Crime Branch-Criminal Investigation Department. The officer appointed to conduct the investigation was required to hold a rank not below that of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The Court also directed that the appropriate provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act be included in the investigation where necessary.
The State authorities had earlier presented their version of the events leading to the death of the man. According to the State, the man had sustained injuries after jumping from a railway bridge while being apprehended by the police in connection with a criminal case. The authorities maintained that the injuries were suffered during this incident and stated that the man had not been taken to the police station. However, the family of the deceased and others alleged that the death occurred due to custodial violence, which led to protests and demands for accountability.
The matter was brought before the Court through a petition filed by the father of the deceased. The petition sought judicial intervention regarding the circumstances surrounding the alleged custodial death and requested appropriate legal action. The Court examined both the concerns raised in the petition and the situation created by the ongoing protests.
Through its observations and directions, the Court sought to balance multiple concerns arising from the case. On one hand, it recognized the importance of allowing citizens to protest and demand accountability in connection with the alleged custodial death. On the other hand, it emphasized the need to ensure that public infrastructure such as national highways remains accessible and that daily life is not severely disrupted. By suggesting an alternate location for the protest and forming a peace committee to facilitate discussions, the Court attempted to ensure that the demonstrations could continue in a manner that respected both democratic rights and public convenience.
The Court’s directions also addressed the need for an impartial investigation into the death of the young man. By directing that the case be investigated by the Crime Branch-Criminal Investigation Department and by acknowledging the applicability of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the Court emphasized the importance of ensuring that the circumstances surrounding the death are properly examined. The proceedings therefore focused both on managing the immediate situation created by the protests and on ensuring that the allegations connected to the custodial death are thoroughly investigated through the legal process.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.