The Bombay High Court was summoned in emergency on September 1, 2025, when huge demonstrations at Azad Maidan and around South Mumbai by Maratha quota activist Manoj Jarange's supporters brought the city nearly to a standstill. The demonstrations, which started as a peaceful sit-in, soon spilt onto the roads and prompted the court to step in and deliver stern directions to ensure normalcy.
Background of the Case:
The public interest groups, including Amy Foundation, had approached the courts in petitions protesting against the mass protest coinciding with the Ganesh Chaturthi festival in Mumbai. The petitioners were of the view that citizens have the right to protest peacefully, but the occupation of public spaces and roads was creating havoc in day-to-day life. Earlier, the court had given conditional permission for the protest on August 26 under certain conditions drawn under the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. The permission was limited to one day, for a gathering of no more than 5,000 individuals, only at Azad Maidan from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Despite that, reports and pictures exhibited in court illustrated that lakhs of protesters had amassed, pouring into major areas of South Mumbai such as CST, Marine Drive, Mantralaya, and Flora Fountain. The protesters were cooking, playing games of kabaddi and tug-of-war, bathing on the streets, dancing, and even camping within heritage areas, prompting the judges to comment that the city was "virtually under siege."
Court Observations:
The bench added that the organizers had actually breached both the terms of the permission and the previous court order. Confirmation was also provided through media reports that Mr. Jarange had announced an indefinite fast and called for additional supporters to converge on Mumbai. The judges were apprehensive that necessary services, schools, and colleges had been adversely affected, and that public areas were being utilised at the expense of ordinary citizens.
Supporters of the protesting groups acknowledged that the situation was out of control and accepted that not all protesters were directly working under Mr. Jarange's orders. Still, the court was not satisfied and made it clear that no group could destabilize civic life like this.
State's Stand:
The Advocate General told the court that the organizers had flouted the permission rules. Notice had already been served on Mr. Jarange and other leaders, but they chose not to heed or obey. The State also requested the court to permit them to take action to restore order.
Court's Directions:
Taking into consideration the seriousness of the situation, the court gave unambiguous directions with the intent to restore normalcy:
- Organizers of the protests were proclaimed to have prima facie disobeyed the terms of the previous order.
- The State was instructed to make a move through due process of law to disperse the protesters from Azad Maidan and adjacent streets.
- Respondents were commanded to clear all occupied public areas within the following morning and make sure that streets were cleared.
- The government was ordered to block future entry of protesters into Mumbai from all access points.
Simultaneously, the bench ordered proper food, water, and medical treatment for protesters, particularly in case Manoj Jarange's health worsened.
Conclusion:
The High Court balanced the constitutional right to peaceful protest and the requirement that public order and daily life not be unsettled. Reiterating that democracy permits dissent but within regulated parameters, the judges called for instantaneous obedience. The petitions were to be heard again on September 2, 2025.
