Chennai Corporation conservancy workers can protest only in authorised places: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court, on Wednesday (August 13, 2025) observed that the conservancy workers of Greater Chennai Corporation (GCC) can protest only in authorised places to highlight their grievances over outsourcing of sanitary work in certain zones, and cannot block pavements and pathways outside the Ripon Building.

First Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan made the observation while disposing of a public interest litigation petition which complained of pedestrian and vehicular movement having been affected due to the ongoing protests on EVR Periyar Road.

The judges said, the Uzhaippor Urimai Iyakkam (UUI), which represents the conservancy workers, could make an application to the police seeking permission to conduct the protests in any of the places earmarked by the police and ordered that the latter should consider such plea in accordance with law.

D. Thenmozhi, 47, a wholesale trader of groceries and vegetables and also the administrator of Dhanam Charitable Trust based at Wallajahbad in Kancheepuram district, had filed the PIL petition alleging hindrance to free movement of traffic outside the Ripon Building due to the protest.

Senior counsel V. Raghavachari, representing the PIL petitioner, complained that the protesters had been occupying the entire stretch of pavement outside the Ripon Building, which houses the headquarters of GCC, for days together for their protest.

He said the pavement up to Puratchi Thalaivar Dr. M.G. Ramachandran Railway station was occupied by them and referred to a notice issued by the Inspector of the jurisdictional Periamet police ptation to UUI on August 7 under Section 41 of the Chennai City Police Act of 1888.

The senior counsel said the notice was issued since the protest was being carried out in an unauthorised place by causing great amount of public inconvenience. However, the police did not proceed further and take any action to disperse the protesters from the pavement, he added.

On his part, advocate R. Sankarasubbu, representing UUI, said, the workers had a democratic right to indulge in a peaceful protest against their employer and denied the charge of having caused any disturbance to road traffic. He said his client would respond to the Section 41 notice issued by the police and contended that they could not be removed from the place of protest by use of force.

Additional Advocate General J. Ravindran said that even the police does not want to use force against the conservancy workers since they belong to the weaker section of society and that it would be better if the protesters disperse from the place on their own.

The AAG said that just 100 metres away from the place of demonstration was the Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, which was one of the biggest public health facilities in Tamil Nadu. “Let them peacefully disperse on their own. We do not want to use force, lest it would be construed as if we are harsh to them. We will certainly take care of all their interests,” he said.