Madras High Court: In the present petition, the petitioner, President of an organisation formed for the welfare of farmers and for promoting river water linkage, sought a writ of mandamus to restrain the authorities from interfering with his and his members’ free movement to New Delhi. He alleged repeated obstruction during travel for peaceful demonstrations, including being deboarded from trains despite holding valid tickets. A Single Judge Bench of B. Pugalendhi, J., while disposing of the petition, held that while the petitioner was bound to obtain prior permission and conduct protests in accordance with law, the authorities were equally not entitled to obstruct his travel arbitrarily when he was in possession of valid tickets.
Background:
The petitioner and his members travelled to New Delhi on multiple occasions but were deboarded from trains despite holding valid tickets. In September 2024, they were deboarded at Chengalpattu Railway Station after boarding at Trichy Junction, and on another occasion at a station in Madhya Pradesh. It was contended that these actions were deliberate attempts to prevent the petitioner from conducting peaceful demonstrations. Similar obstructions occurred in 2015 and 2016, leading to petitions that affirmed his rights under Article 19 of the Constitution, yet such interference continued.
The petitioner had a history of public protests, including a 141-day demonstration at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi, a 100-day farmers’ awareness march from Kanyakumari to Chennai in 2018, and a rally at Parliament Street in November 2017. He claimed that both the State and Central Governments jointly obstructed his travel to prevent such agitations. A petition filed before the Supreme Court in 2025 was dismissed with liberty to approach the appropriate High Court, resulting in the present petition.
The Commissioner of Police, Trichy, filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner conducted protests without prior permission and violated conditions when granted. The llegations included using masks of the Prime Minister’s face, conducting fasts involving senior citizens, participating in public meetings in half-naked attire, and using human skulls and bones as garlands, causing public nuisance.
It was further alleged that the petitioner instigated members to climb cell phone towers, plunge into rivers, bury themselves in sand, climb temples, and lie near burning bodies in cremation grounds. Seventy-three cases were reportedly registered against him. While acknowledging his right to free movement under Article 19 of the Constitution, it was argued that such rights were subject to reasonable restrictions, and the petitioner habitually violated permissions, creating law and order issues. The authorities cited earlier court orders to assert their discretion in maintaining public order and emphasised the balance between fundamental rights and duties.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court observed that the petitioner had averred that he was prevented from travelling in trains despite holding valid tickets, however, he failed to furnish specific dates regarding the alleged incidents in September 2024. The Court noted that it was also pointed out that the petitioner, his wife, and son, were Advocates, yet no legal proceedings were initiated at the relevant time and on such vague averments, the Court found it difficult to issue a general mandamus.
At the same time, the Court recalled that Mahatma Gandhi was once deboarded from a train despite holding a valid ticket, and that incident became a turning point which inspired a movement ultimately securing freedom for the nation. The Court emphasised that it was to ensure such freedom, that the Constitution guaranteed fundamental rights. Among them, the right to move freely, to assemble peacefully, and to voice grievances under Articles 19(1)(a), (b), and (d) of the Constitution formed the very core of democratic participation.
The Court examined the provisions under Sections 55, 56, and 156 of the Railways Act, 1989, which empowered Railway authorities to deboard persons only in limited circumstances like travelling without a ticket, suffering from infectious disease, or travelling in unauthorised parts of the train. The Court held that none of the provisions permitted deboarding of a passenger holding a valid ticket merely because he intended to protest and if such deboarding occurred, it would amount to an offence for which action must be taken against the officials concerned.
However, the Court emphasised that the right to movement and protest was not absolute as citizens were equally bound by their fundamental duties. The Court observed that the petitioner’s methods of agitation, including climbing cell phone towers, endangering lives of senior citizens, or using skulls and bones in public protests, were not compatible with lawful protest. The Court further noted that the law required prior permission before conducting demonstrations, and when such permission was granted, the conditions must be respected.
In the present case, the Court observed that the petitioner failed to provide particulars of the alleged deboarding incidents, since being an Advocate, he could have taken immediate recourse to law at the relevant time before the appropriate forum. In the absence of specific material, the Court emphasised that it could not issue directions in general terms.
Accordingly, the Court reiterated that the petitioner’s right to free movement and peaceful protest was guaranteed under the Constitution. However, such rights were held to be subject to reasonable restrictions. The Court held that while the petitioner was bound to obtain prior permission and conduct protests in accordance with law, the authorities were equally not entitled to obstruct his travel arbitrarily when he was in possession of valid tickets.
The Court, therefore, disposed of the petition, holding that the petitioner had liberty to initiate appropriate legal proceedings against the officials concerned, if any future obstruction arose.
[P. Ayyakannu v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 6829, decided on 17-09-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: S. Muthukrishnan
For the Respondents: K. Govindarajan, Deputy Solicitor General of India, F. Deepak, Special Government Pleader, E. Antony Sahaya Prabhakar, Additional Public Prosecutor.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
