A division bench comprising Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait M Sethna was hearing a petition filed by Mumbai resident Nilesh Ramchandra Dhanukar, who sought directions to prevent the proposed agitation from entering the city.
The bench said there was no basis to intervene at this stage merely because the petitioner feared a repeat of disruptions witnessed during earlier protests.
“Merely on the basis of an apprehension in a petition, we are not going to take such a call. State machinery is capable to handle all these situations,” the Court observed.
During the hearing, advocate Mayur Khandeparkar, appearing for Dhanukar, sought urgent intervention ahead of the Ganesh festival, which begins on September 14. He referred to the large-scale disruption caused by Maratha protests in South Mumbai in 2025 and submitted that major public areas and roads had been affected.
Khandeparkar also relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Shaheen Bagh case concerning the occupation of public spaces during protests. He submitted that areas around CST, Mantralaya, Marine Drive and Flora Fountain had previously witnessed significant congestion and disruption during demonstrations.
The petitioner’s side further pointed to statements attributed to Jarange calling upon supporters to reach Mumbai, including those who could not travel to the city being asked to stage protests on local roads.
Advocate General Milind Sathe, representing the Maharashtra government, informed the Court that Jarange was on the 13th day of his hunger strike in Jalna. He also stated that no application had been made by Jarange under the Public Meeting, Agitation and Procession Rules, 2025 seeking permission for the proposed march.
Sathe highlighted concerns surrounding Jarange’s appeal to supporters to enter Mumbai ahead of the 10-day Ganesh festival. At the same time, he assured the bench that the State had sufficient arrangements in place to maintain law and order.
The Court ultimately found no reason to issue directions against the proposed agitation.
The bench noted that the petition was largely based on experiences from previous protests rather than any immediate circumstance requiring judicial intervention. It also expressed confidence that Jarange, whom it described as a responsible and law-abiding citizen, would respect the law while exercising his democratic rights.
The judges underlined that peaceful protest remains constitutionally protected and said the State should engage with people who choose to demonstrate or undertake a hunger strike rather than automatically seek to prevent such activity.
“If somebody is protesting, if somebody is on a hunger strike, the State should intervene, they should go and talk to the person. This is a democracy. How we can stop a person not to make an agitation? There is a fundamental right,” the bench said.
The ruling leaves the responsibility for managing the proposed march and maintaining public order with the State authorities, while preserving Jarange’s right to engage in peaceful democratic protest.
