The Madras High Court recently ruled against a controversial condition imposed during the organization of the Murugan Conference in Madurai. The condition, enforced by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, mandated that all vehicles entering Madurai for the conference must obtain a special vehicle pass. The court, however, held this requirement as both jurisdictionally flawed and a violation of fundamental rights.
Read Also:- Madras High Court Begins Legal Review of Copyright Claim Against Nani’s HIT 3 Film
The case stemmed from a condition laid down by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Anna Nagar Range, who granted permission for the event but imposed 52 conditions. Among these, Condition No. 7 required every vehicle carrying participants to secure a pass after submitting documents like RC book, license, and Aadhaar card. The appellants—representing Hindu Munnani—challenged this specific requirement, stating it violated their constitutional right to free movement under Article 19(1)(d).
An Assistant Commissioner can have jurisdiction and sway only over her territorial limits. She could not have issued an order preventing entry of vehicles into Madurai city.
— Madras High Court Bench
The court observed that the Assistant Commissioner lacked the authority to impose such a wide-ranging restriction that extended beyond her jurisdiction. The power to regulate traffic and processions is defined under Section 41(1) of the Madras City Police Act, 1888, but does not extend to implementing blanket entry restrictions for an entire city.
The appellants further argued that the directive was unreasonable and overly burdensome. They highlighted the practical difficulties participants faced, including delays and confusion in obtaining passes. They also pointed out the inconsistency, as no such condition had been imposed for similar events held recently by political groups in the same region.
The State contended that the order was meant to maintain law and order and that the Assistant Commissioner had the authority to issue it. The court, however, found this reasoning unconvincing. It held that no substantial justification had been provided to support the restriction.
The fundamental rights of the citizens cannot be interfered with without strong reasons, which are totally absent in this case.
— Judgement by Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice K. Rajasekar
Read Also:- Madras High Court Warns Police of Suo Motu Contempt for Revealing Rape Victim's Identity
The court emphasized that freedom of movement and peaceful assembly are guaranteed rights in a democratic country like India. It stated that such rights can be restricted only in the interest of public order or protection of Scheduled Tribes, as per Article 19(5), neither of which applied in this case.
In light of these findings, the court set aside Condition No. 7. It accepted the organisers’ undertaking to cooperate fully with the authorities and to provide essential documents at police booths on-site, instead of prior approval.
Case Title: M Arasupandi v. The Commissioner of Police and Others
