Introduction
The Bombay High Court on Friday ruled against issuing preemptive orders to stop Maratha reservation activist Manoj Jarange Patil’s planned march to Mumbai. The case, titled Nilesh Ramchandra Dhanukar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., was brought before the court by Mumbai resident Nilesh Ramchandra Dhanukar, who sought to prevent the march.
Court’s Decision
A division bench led by Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Mahendra Sethna declined to intervene, stating that directions could not be given based on mere apprehensions. “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 bench remarked.
Arguments Presented
Advocate Mayur Khandeparkar, representing Dhanukar, urged the court to intervene before the Ganesh festival, warning of potential disruptions similar to the chaotic demonstrations of 2025. Khandeparkar cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Shaheen Bagh case, emphasizing that public spaces should not be occupied indefinitely and that dissent should be confined to designated areas. He highlighted past incidents where protesters blocked key areas such as CST, Mantralaya, Marine Drive, and Flora Fountain.
Khandeparkar also referenced Jarange’s public statements urging followers to reach Mumbai without permission and to block local streets if unable to travel to the city.
State’s Response
Advocate General Milind Sathe, representing the State, informed the bench that Jarange was on the 13th day of a hunger strike in Jalna and had not sought permission under the Public Meeting, Agitation and Procession Rules, 2025, for the Mumbai march. Sathe noted that Jarange had called upon his followers to enter the city in a “guerrilla warfare” style ahead of the Ganesh festival, commencing on September 14. Despite these concerns, Sathe assured the court that the state was prepared to maintain law and order.
More Read
Court’s Observations
The bench observed that Dhanukar’s plea was based largely on past experiences rather than present circumstances. The judges expressed confidence that Jarange would act within the bounds of the law, stating, “We have no doubt that the Respondent No 4 (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.”
The court also emphasized the constitutional right to peaceful assembly, stating, “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.”
