The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Tuesday disposed of a petition filed by farmer leader P Ayyakannu, who alleged repeated obstruction of his travel to New Delhi to participate in protests.
Justice B Pugalendhi, while ruling on the matter, underlined that the Constitution guarantees citizens the right to free movement and peaceful protest under Article 19, but made it clear that such rights are subject to reasonable restrictions.
The Complaint
Mr Ayyakannu, president of a farmers' welfare association, told the court that despite holding valid tickets, he and his members were deboarded from trains on multiple occasions, including at Chengalpattu and in Madhya Pradesh. He argued these obstructions were deliberate attempts to prevent his participation in peaceful agitations in Delhi.
The petitioner recalled his earlier struggles, including a 141-day protest at Jantar Mantar, a 2017 rally at Parliament Street, and a 2018 farmers' awareness march from Kanyakumari to Chennai.
State's Response
The state of Tamil Nadu opposed his plea, accusing Mr Ayyakannu of routinely violating permission conditions, creating public nuisance, and staging protests using provocative methods, like garlands of human skulls and bones. Police claimed 73 cases have been filed against him over the years.
Court's Observations
The Court invoked the historical episode of Mahatma Gandhi being deboarded from a train, noting that such incidents once sparked movements that shaped the nation.
Quoting a Supreme Court precedent, the court stressed that "peaceful protest is a cherished democratic right", but emphasised that demonstrations must be conducted lawfully.
The order clarified that railway authorities cannot deboard valid ticket holders merely for intending to protest. It further said citizens must obtain prior permission and abide by conditions during demonstrations, adding that affected persons may seek legal remedy against officials if unlawful obstruction occurs.
Verdict
Dismissing the plea, the court reiterated the balance between fundamental rights and duties, stating that while Mr Ayyakannu has the right to protest, he must do so within the bounds of law.
