State Can't Permit Protests Which Disrupt Public Peace & Tranquility: Madras High Court Dismisses Bharath Hindu Munnani's Plea

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan observed that for the incidents that happened in Thiruparakundram, resolutions had already been passed between the concerned parties before the RDO and there was no need to conduct another procession, in Chennai to condemn the incidents. The court highlighted that the State could not permit any form of protest which disrupted the public peace and harmony. The court highlighted that Unity in Diversity was the strength of the country and government had to maintain the harmony among the different religions.

“So far, Hindu, Muslim and Jain have cohabited the hill peacefully, respecting the wishes of each other. In fact, the Unity in Diversity is the strength of our nation and the Government has to maintain harmony among all the communities and religion. Therefore, the Government shall ensure that religious sentiments and beliefs of any community will not be harmed in any manner and shall not allow anybody to affect the peace and harmony,” the court said.

The orders were passed on a plea by S Yuvaraj, Deputy District President of the Bharath Hindu Munnani, North Chennai seeking directions to the Commissioner of Police and the Inspector of Police (Flower Bazaar Police Station) to permit the Munnani to take out a procession on 18th February, with a Vel (Spear often associated with Lord Murugan) from Egambarashwarar Temple to Sri Muthukumarasamu Kovil Devasthanam Rasappa Street in Chennai to show solidarity with the protestors in Thiruparakundram Hill row.

The Thiruparakundram Hills which is home to both the Kasivishwanathar temple and a Sikkandar dargah has recently become the eye of the storm after animal sacrifices were prohibited in the Dargah. A video was also widely circulated showing a group of individuals consuming non-vegetarian food at the hill. This led to wide controversy with Hindu groups planning a protest against the same.

A prohibitory order was imposed in the area for 2 days (February 3rd and 4th) under Section 144 CrPC (now Section 163 BNSS) by the District Collector, upon information by the Commissioner of Police to ensure communal harmony. The police also issued a press note informing the general public not to come to Thiruparakundram temple. The police also asked the fleet and transport operators to not carry the public to the temple for protests and asked the shops and halls near the temple to remain closed.

The petitioners argued that their representations for carrying out the procession was not considered by the authorities prompting them to approach the High Court.

The State opposed the plea and submitted that the ownership of the land had already been decided by the privy council and the whole hill except the Nellitope including the new Mandapam, the flight of steps above the new Mandapam, whole of the top of the hillock on which the mosque and flag staff stand, were owned by the Devasthanam.

The State Public Prosecutor informed the court that following the dispute between two religious groups, a meeting was convened by the RDO on January 30, 2025. The PP submitted that during the meeting, the District Collector had sent a report that the practice of animal sacrifice and consumption of the same as a form of worship exists as a tradition and is followed by the Mohammedans and was also practiced in some temples around the Hill. He informed the court that based on the Collector's report, the people in the meeting had agreed to follow the same procedures which were prevalent by all religions.

The court noted that when permissions were granted to Hindu Munnani for conducting processions in connection with the issue, provocative speech was made with an intent to cause riot and FIRs were also registered for the same. The court noted that the speech promoted enmity between different groups on the ground of race and religion and the act was prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religion which disturbs the public tranquility.

Thus, the court was not in favour of allowing the procession and asked the state to take necessary action to ease the religious tension and restore the peace and harmony in the area. The petition was thus dismissed.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. G. Mutharasu

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Hasan Muhamed Jinnah State Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. A. Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor

Case Title: S Yuvaraj v The Commissioner of Police and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 60

Case No: W.P.No. 4732 of 2025