Uncategorized

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Special Original Jurisdiction) W.P.No. of 2026 Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) Represented by its Joint General Secretary, Mr.CTR.Nirmal Kumar, M/A 43 Plot No.275, Sea Shore Town, 8th Avenue Panaiyur, ECR, Chennai – 600119 …Petitioner -Versus- The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home (Police- VIII) Department (The Home, Prohibition and Excise Department) Secretariat, Chennai. …Respondent AFFIDAVIT OF THE PETITIONER

by Sekar Reporter · January 30, 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

W.P.No. of 2026

Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK)

Represented by its Joint General Secretary,

Mr.CTR.Nirmal Kumar, M/A 43

Plot No.275, Sea Shore Town, 8^th Avenue

Panaiyur, ECR, Chennai – 600119 …Petitioner

-Versus-

The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Home (Police- VIII) Department

(The Home, Prohibition and Excise Department) Secretariat, Chennai.

…Respondent AFFIDAVIT OF THE PETITIONER

I, C.T.R.Nirmal Kumar, Son of T.Raja, aged about 43 years, and having office at Plot No.275, Sea Shore Town, 8^th Avenue, Panaiyur, ECR, Chennai – 600119 do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:-

1. I am the Joint General Secretary of the Petitioner political party, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), and am well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the present case. I am competent to swear to this affidavit on behalf of the Petitioner party.

BRIEF PROFILE OF THE PETITIONER PARTY

2. The Petitioner party, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), is a registered regional political party functioning in the State of Tamil Nadu and the Union Territory of Puducherry.

3. The core ideology of TVK is based on Secular Social Justice, which encompasses the values of secularism, social equity, inclusive representation, linguistic harmony, democratic values, and the two-language policy.

4. Since its inception, TVK has actively engaged in democratic processes and social development by upholding constitutional values, voicing public concerns, and safeguarding the rights of underprivileged and marginalized communities through peaceful and lawful means.

5. The Petitioner party has been conducting political meetings, public campaigns, and policy discussions in accordance with the democratic rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India, particularly Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b).

6. I state that Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) was founded by our Leader Mr.Vijay, whose principles and policies have drawn lakhs of people across Tamil Nadu, particularly women, youth, and students, to join the movement. Our Party has rapidly become a strong democratic force and one of the largest political parties in the State.

7. The unprecedented growth of the Petitioner Party has provoked resistance from a dominant political family in Tamil Nadu, which, unable to accept the rise of TVK, has continuously sought to obstruct our democratic activities.

8. Consequently, our cadres often face unwarranted difficulties in securing statutory permissions from police authorities to conduct political events, despite due compliance with all legal requirements and seeking permission to conduct a peaceful campaign at police-notified venues.

9. However, notwithstanding such compliance and our demonstrated track record, the Police authorities are continue to impose discriminatory and onerous restrictions exclusively upon the Petitioner Party, while granting liberal and favourable permissions to other political parties.

10. Another prominent political party was permitted to conduct its political campaign subject to far less stringent conditions. This stark disparity underscores the discriminatory treatment meted out to the Petitioner Party.

11. The leaders of the ruling party as well as other opposition parties are conducting regular road shows, rallies, and public meetings at places of their choice without being subjected to such unreasonable conditions. In stark contrast, whenever the Petitioner Party applies for permission to conduct meetings in designated areas notified by the Police, onerous and impractical conditions are consistently imposed. Though many such conditions are incapable of strict compliance, the Petitioner Party has scrupulously endeavoured to adhere to them in order to maintain peace and discipline. It is evident that the real object behind such restrictions is to obstruct the political campaign of the Petitioner Party at the behest of the ruling dispensation.

12. The Petitioner Party has a proven record of conducting peaceful and disciplined events, including the State Conferences at Vikaravandi and Madurai, the Booth Agents’ Conference at Coimbatore, and a Dharna at Chennai against custodial violence. All these events were successfully conducted without any disturbance to law and order.

13. Despite such bona fides, the officials of the Police, acting under political influence, have failed to consider our genuine requisitions in a fair and impartial manner. Consequently, the Petitioner Party was constrained to make a representation on 15.09.2025 requesting the police authorities to issue necessary directions to all subordinate police officials in the State of Tamil Nadu to grant uniform permissions for conducting political campaigns, just as permissions are being extended to the ruling party.

14. Even after such representation, members and cadres of the Petitioner Party continue to face harassment and obstruction from local police officials across various districts. The Respondent has failed to issue uniform guidelines ensuring equal treatment to all political parties, thereby perpetuating arbitrary discrimination in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India.

15. Thereafter, the petitioner’s party has filed writ petition in W.P.(Crl).No.884/2025 seeking relief of “Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent to forthwith instruct all subordinate police officials throughout the State of Tamil Nadu to consider and grant necessary permissions to the Petitioner Party for conducting political campaigns led by its Party Leader, Mr. Vijay, across the State of Tamil Nadu between 20.09.2025 to 20.12.2025, on the basis of the Petitioner’s political party representation dated 09.09.2025 by the consideration of the Representation of the Petitioner dated 15.09.2025 in a fair, uniform and nondiscriminatory manner, within a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble

Court and in accordance with law”

16. During the hearing, W.P.(Crl) No.884 of 2025, a learned Single Judge of this Court directed to State Government to come up with guidelines with regard to the collection of security deposit from the political parties who intend to have such huge public meetings, gatherings, demonstrations, etc.

17. Later on, the Chief Secretary and Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, were suo motu directed to be impleaded as party respondents in W.P.(Crl) No.884 of 2025, on the observation that the matter requires guidelines to be formulated and policy decision to be taken by the State Government.

18. Subsequently, an unfortunate stampede took place on 27.9.2025 at Karur, during a political rally organized by the petitioner party, in which many persons died and several others were injured.

19. Thereafter, multiple petitions were filed before the Madurai Bench of this court seeking issuance of direction to respondents to frame guidelines/Standing Operating Procedure (SOP) for regulation of political party meetings, rallies, road shows, conferences and other ill-managed mass gatherings throughout the State of Tamil Nadu.

20. While hearing a batch of petitions and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam and others v. P.H.Dinesh and others was of the view that the issue pertaining to formation of SOP/guidelines for political rallies, which arose for consideration in W.P.(Crl) No.884 of 2025, should be heard by a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court. Accordingly, W.P.(Crl) No.884 of 2025 was re-registered as W.P.No.43333 of 2025.

21. In compliance with the direction of this Hon’ble court, the draft SOP placed before this Hon’ble court and after pondering upon the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties. The Hon’ble court directed the petitioner to make objections if any.

22. As per the direction of this Hon’ble court the petitioner made the objections in written.

1. In Section 6(c) of SOP titled “Scrutiny and Approval Process”, in Section 6(c) reads that priority will be given to political parties recognized by the Election Commission of India:- It is further submitted that extending priority solely to political parties recognized by the Election Commission of India, to the exclusion of other registered political parties, is arbitrary and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to all political parties under the Constitution. The criterion of “representation in the Legislative Assembly” cannot be the sole basis for conferring priority, as it results in unjust discrimination between recognized and registered political parties, despite both being entitled to equal protection of law. Therefore, Clause 6(c), which creates an unreasonable and hostile distinction between similarly placed political parties, is unconstitutional and violative of their fundamental rights

2. It is submitted that, during the period when the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) is in force, the norms and guidelines of the Election Commission of India, including permissions through the Suvidha Portal, must prevail over the SOP, and the SOP can operate only to the limited extent of crowd safety and essential amenities, as already indicated in the draft

3. It is therefore clarified and suggested that, in case of any inconsistency between the MCC/ECI directions and the SOP, the former shall prevail, and the SOP shall be read as purely supplemental on safety and crowd management aspects during elections.

4. It is suggested that “designated/notified public gathering places” be expressly defined as those venues notified in Form-I by the District Collector/Commissioner of Police along with their certified seated and standing capacity; all other venues shall be treated as nondesignated venues requiring prior capacity certification by PWD as per the SOP.

5. Where a political party seeks to hold an event in an area not yet designated, the authority may either (a) designate and notify it upon PWD certification, or (b) process it as an alternative venue, but the burden of initiating such designation cannot be foisted on the organizer alone.

6. While the SOP prescribes that each designated venue shall have a certified maximum crowd-holding capacity, it does not lay down a minimum fixed “capacity limit” for all venues; it is therefore suggested that where the certified capacity is lower than the anticipated turnout, the authorities, in consultation with the organizers, (a) either scale down permission to the certified capacity with appropriate conditions, or (b) suggest an alternative venue, and shall not reject the application simpliciter without affording an opportunity to rework the venue/capacity.

7. It is further submitted that, instead of prescribing a rigid number of ambulances and medical teams in the main body of the SOP, the medical deployment may be in accordance with indicative crowd-based norms such as those set out in Annexure-B (for first-aid booths, doctors, paramedical staff and ambulances), which may be applied flexibly depending on venue conditions and distance from care centres.

8. The SOP already contemplates broad norms for police deployment vis-à-vis anticipated crowd size by risk category; it is suggested that these ratios be expressly treated as guiding norms, with the final decision on deployment resting with the police authorities, so that the organizers are not made answerable for any perceived inadequacy of police strength.

9. It is further submitted that the organisers can be required to deploy volunteers in the ratios specified in the SOP, but the ratio of police personnel shall be exclusively within the domain and responsibility of the police administration.

10. The condition that the audience “shall not be made to assemble in advance by more than two hours” should not be construed as imposing strict liability on organisers for the independent decision of members of the public to arrive earlier, particularly in large political rallies, where staggered individual arrival times are neither practicable nor controllable by the organiser.

11. It is therefore suggested that the obligation of the organiser be confined to: (a) issuing appropriate communications requesting participants not to report earlier than a reasonable time, and (b) putting in place a basic holding arrangement within the venue; beyond this, crowd arrival patterns in public spaces before entry into the venue ought to be treated as a matter for police traffic and bandobust management.

12. It is submitted that, consistent with the provision that the SDPO must issue an order at least five days before the event, any rejection of an application should ordinarily be communicated within five days from the date of submission, so as to afford the organiser sufficient time to rectify defects.

13. It is further suggested that a resubmitted or rectified application, filed within the original date window for the event, should be processed on priority, without insisting on fresh time limits, so that bona fide organisers are not deprived of their proposed programme merely on curable technical grounds.

14. The SOP presently casts wide obligations on organisers regarding crowd safety, damage to property, and compliance with conditions. It is respectfully submitted that such obligations must be restricted to the venue and areas formally handed over to the organiser (including designated parking lots), and should not extend to incidents occurring en route, on public roads or other places beyond the organiser’s effective control.

15. A clarification is therefore proposed to the effect that any untoward incident occurring outside the notified venue and designated parking areas, particularly during travel to and from the venue, shall fall primarily within the remit of the State and its agencies, and the organiser shall not be fastened with strict liability in respect thereof, save in cases of clear, direct and proximate negligence on its part.

16. While the SOP rightly requires separate enclosures and volunteers for pregnant women, senior citizens, children and persons with disabilities, it is submitted that the primary responsibility for protection of such vulnerable persons in public spaces, ingress/egress routes and in any law and order situation must rest with the police and district administration.

17. The organiser’s obligation should be confined to: (a) providing a reserved enclosure and basic amenities within the venue, and (b) deploying earmarked volunteers; any law and order issue involving vulnerable persons outside the venue must be treated as a policing responsibility rather than an organiser’s default.

18. The SOP envisages that fire extinguishers and fire tenders shall be provided as stipulated by Fire and Rescue Services. It is submitted that procurement and deployment of fire tenders, being specialised emergency services, should be arranged by the State through the Fire and Rescue Services Department, with the organiser being liable, if necessary, to reimburse the prescribed charges wherever additional deployment is specifically requisitioned for the event.

19. The organiser can reasonably be held responsible for: (a) complying with all fire safety directives, (b) providing adequate extinguishers, and (c) ensuring that temporary structures conform to fire safety norms; however, failure of the State to provide sufficient fire tenders, or the necessity to mobilise more tenders owing to unforeseen contingencies, ought not to be visited as a breach on the part of the organiser.

20. The SOP presently requires the Station House Officer to prepare a post-event report after inspection of the venue. It is suggested that the role of the organiser be recorded as one of cooperation and assistance, and that the organiser may, at the request of the SHO, provide a written postevent compliance note and supporting materials (such as CCTV footage and volunteer deployment details) to facilitate accurate assessment.

21. It is further submitted that the mere existence of minor lapses not impacting safety or law and order should not automatically trigger penal action; the SOP may clarify that only material breaches, duly recorded with reasons, shall form the basis for damages or other coercive action.”

23. Despite the objections raised the by the petitioners political party and the same was not taken into consideration despite the best efforts taken by him.

24. That the Respondent has issued impugned Government Order in G.O.(Ms).No.5, Home (Police–VIII) Department, dated 05.01.2026 without considering the suggestions and objections filed by the petitioner’s party and other political parties in the above writ petitions.

25. The impugned order passed by the Respondent; Creates unconstitutional classification between recognized and registered political parties; Imposes disproportionate burdens on organizers; Shifts core State obligations onto political parties; Operates as a deterrent to political participation.

26. This amounts to a colorable exercise of power, designed to stifle the lawful political activities of the Petitioner Party, in gross violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution. The Petitioner is constrained to approach this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the following, among other

GROUNDS

a) Violation Of Article 14 – Arbitrariness & Hostile Discrimination:- SOP grants priority only to ECI-recognized parties, excluding registered parties; No intelligible differentia with rational nexus; Creates impermissible political hierarchy; parties having legislative representation. While registered political parties, though lawfully entitled to function, are placed at a clear disadvantage.

b) Violation Of Articles 19(1)(A) & 19(1)(B):- Political rallies and campaigns are protected speech and assembly; Restrictions imposed are excessive, vague, and disproportionate.

c) Shifting Of Core State Functions To Organisers:- Law & order, policing, fire services, traffic control are sovereign functions.

d) Failure to Provide Procedural Safeguards: – No opportunity to cure defects; No reasonable timelines.

e) The SOP mandates: rigid numerical requirements for ambulances, medical teams, volunteers, barricading, CCTV, fire safety, and crowd timing, advance restrictions on public assembly beyond reasonable control of organisers, potential denial of permission for non-compliance with impracticable conditions, thereby transforming regulation into suppression of political activity.

f) The SOP improperly shifts State responsibilities such as: policing, crowd control beyond venue limits, traffic regulation, fire and emergency response, onto political organisers, exposing them to civil and penal consequences even for events outside their effective control. This amounts to abdication of sovereign functions.

g) Strict and Vicarious Liability Without Fault;-The SOP fastens: blanket liability for stampedes, damage to public property, crowd behaviour outside notified venues, without requiring proof of direct, proximate, or wilful negligence on the part of the organizer. Such strict liability is unknown to constitutional regulation of political assemblies.

h) SOP Operates As A Prior Restraint On Political Speech;- By empowering executive authorities to: delay permissions, reject applications without opportunity to cure defects, impose openended conditions, the SOP functions as a prior restraint on political speech and assembly, impermissible under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b).

i) The SOP does not clearly subordinate itself to: Election Commission of India directions, Model Code of Conduct, Suvidha Portal mechanism, thereby creating potential conflict and uncertainty during election periods

j) The petitioner reserves his rights to raise additional grounds at the time of arguments if any.

It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dispense with the impugned Government Order in

G.O.(Ms).No.5, Home (Police–VIII) Department, dated 05.01.2026 at present and pass such further or other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

In these Circumstances, the petitioner prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to Stay the operation of Clause 6(c) and 8(g)1 Government Order in G.O.(Ms).No.5, Home (Police–VIII) Department, dated 05.01.2026 till the disposal of the above said Writ Petition and thus render justice.

In these circumstances it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ or order or direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned Government Order in

G.O.(Ms).No.5, Home (Police–VIII) Department, dated 05.01.2026, and quash Clause 6(c) and 8(g)1 of the same as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondent to reframe and notify a fresh Standard Operating Procedure governing political assemblies and public meetings, in a fair, uniform and non-discriminatory manner, after duly considering the objections and suggestions of all stakeholders, including registered political parties and to pass such further or other order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and thus render justice.

Solemnly affirmed at Chennai Before Me

On this the 29^th day of January

2026 and his sign in my presence

Advocate:: Chennai