Says right to protest has been misunderstood as right to inconvenience the public

The Madras High Court on Monday overturned an order passed by a single judge on April 28, permitting protests on the Marina.

“Unfortunately, the right to protest has been continuously misunderstood [by those seeking permission for protests] as a right to inconvenience the general public,” it said.

Allowing a State appeal against the single judge’s order, a Division Bench of Justices K.K. Sasidharan and R. Subramanian said, “The protesters who claim to espouse the cause of the public often forget that their right to protest ends when the other person’s right to free movement and the right to not listen starts.”

The judges agreed with Additional Advocate General P.H. Arvindh Pandian that the right of the State to regulate protests included the right to prescribe particular locations for the protests and such a right to identify locations for demonstrations, dharnas and protests had been recognised by the Supreme Court too.

Authoring the judgment, Mr. Justice Subramanian said: “No person, in our considered opinion, has a right to contend that he would protest only at a particular place and not anywhere else. The very fact that the right to protest is acknowledged as a fundamental right under the Constitution makes it subject to reasonable restrictions.”

He also took note that, since 2003, the police had not permitted any protest either on the sands of the Marina or the busy Kamarajar Salai that runs parallel to the beach because it was an ecologically sensitive area. Only awareness programmes and homage to leaders whose statues or mausoleums were situated on the beach were permitted.

Policy decision

After recording the submissions, the judge directed the police to strictly adhere to the policy decision of not permitting any form of protests on the Marina in future. He reiterated that P. Ayyakannu, leader of a farmers’ association, who had filed a writ petition before the single judge, had no “vested” right to demand that he would sit on a fast only at the Marina.

On the petitioner’s contention that the voice of the protesters would reach those in power only if they protest from vantage points, the judge said such an argument might not hold good in an era when the media covered every other protest.

Mr. Justice Sasidharan, the senior judge in the Division Bench, concurred with the judgment penned by the other judge. He added that the right to freedom of speech would by implication include “the right to not to listen to the speech, the right to sleep without disturbance and the right to silence. A citizen has no fundamental right to insist that his speech should be heard by an unwilling citizen. ”

Observing that protesters could always hold their agitations Chepauk, Valluvar Kottam and Chintadripet and then meet the Minister or the government official concerned, Mr. Justice Sasidharan said there would be no necessity for a show of strength at Marina for espousing the cause of agriculturists.