T HE Bombay High Court Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait M. Sethna, while considering the situation of the agitation over Maratha reservation at present, in its second phase, on September 11, 2026 brought to their notice through the writ petition filed by Nilesh Ramchandra Dhanukar and others v. State of Maharashtra and others; showed almost, no willingness to issue any direction to the authorities, for the present. In their order, the Division Bench has pointed out that considering the factual situation as has emerged before the High Court, it finds that at present, the entire case of the petitioners, is set up on the basis of past experience. There is no situation as yet which has emerged for the Court to take cognisance and issue appropriate directions in the matter. However, the HC voiced expectation, that if any case, such protest is organised, the same would be within the mandate of Rule 25 of the said Rules. The Court has no doubt that the respondent-4, Maratha quota activist Manoj Jarange is a responsible Law abiding citizen. In a resilient democracy as ours, whilst exercising his rights, he would be conscious of the mandate of law and would act accordingly. For further consideration, the High Court has issued notice to the respondents, to know their views by September 24,2026.

 

The counsel for the petitioners Mayur Khandeparkar and his colleague lawyers, in support of their submissions, have placed reliance on a Division Bench order of August 26, 2025, passed in PIL (L)No. 25656 of 2025, wherein directions were issued for the proposed Maratha Reservation/ Aandolan at Azad Maidan, which was scheduled on August 29, 2025. In the said proceedings reliance has been placed on the judgement passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Amit Sahni (Shaheen Bagh) v. Commissioner of Police –(2020) 10SCC 439 Paragraph Nos. 17 to 19 of the said judgement reproduced as under: “17. However, while appreciating the existence of the right to peaceful protest against a legislation (Keeping in mind the words of Pultizer Prize winner, Walter Lippmann, who said in a democracy, the opposition is not only tolerated as constitutional but must be maintained because it is indispensable”), we have to make it unequivocally clear that public ways and public spaces cannot be occupied in such a manner and that too indefinitely. Democracy and dissent go hand in hand, but then the demonstrations expressing dissent have to be in designated places alone.

 

The present case was not even one of protests taking place in an undesignated area, but was blockage of a public way which caused grave inconvenience to commuters. “We cannot accept the plea of the applicants that an indeterminable number of people can assemble whenever they choose to protest.- K.K.Mathew J. in Himatlal case(1973)1 SCC 227 had eloquently observed that: “70. ...Streets and public parks exist primarily for other purposes and the social interest promoted by untrammeled exercise of freedom of utterance and assembly in public street must yield to social interest which prohibition and regulation of speech are designed to protect. But there is a constitutional difference between reasonable regulation and arbitrary exclusion.” “Furthermore, we live in the age of technology and internet where social movements around the world have swiftly integrated digital connectivity in their toolkit; be it for organising, publicity or effective communication. Technology, however, in a near paradoxical manner works to both empower digitally fuelled movements and at the same time contributes to their apparent weaknesses. “The ability to scale up quickly ,for example, using digital infrastructure has empowered movements to embrace often leaderless aspirations and evade usual restrictions of censorship; however, the flip side to this is that social media channels are often fraught with danger, and can lead to the creation of highly polarised environments, which often see parallel conversations running with no constructive outcome evident. Both these scenarios were witnessed in Shaheen Bagh, which started out as protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act, gained momentum across citiesto become a movement of solidarity for women and their cause, but came with its fair share of chinks as has been opined by theinterlocutors and caused inconvenience to commuters.

 

“We have, thus, no hesitationin concluding that such kind of occupation of public ways, whether at the site in question or anywhere else for protests is not acceptable and the administrationought to take action to keep theareas clear of encroachments or obstructions.” Considering the public meetings, agitations and processionsRules, 2025, the HC has issuedcertain interim directions. Against the backdrop, the petitioners’ counsel vehemently contendedthat now a similar situation hasarisen in Mumbai. This is as muchas the respondent-4, Jarange hasexpressed inclination to visit Mumbai with his supporters. There is every likelihood of chaosand disorder ensuing in the city. Therefore, the Counsel was seeking similar directions to the Statemachinery, so that there may not be any impediments in thesmooth lives of the citizens. Heexpressed similar apprehensionsduring Ganesh festival. The Advocate General Dr. Milind Sathe submitted that till date, no permission has been taken by the respondent-4, Jarangefor organising rally/protest, as isrequired under the Rule 25. At this stage an apprehensonwas also expressed in regard tothe health of the respondent No.4, who is on hunger strike. On this count also the Court hasstated that it expects that the Statewould take all such steps to handle any medical emergency exigency qua respondent-4, if theoccasion so arises. For further consideration, the High Court hasposted the petition on September 24, 2026.