CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has suggested introduction of an online system for enabling political parties to submit applications for permission to hold meetings and said ‘a first come, first served’ method could be adopted if multiple parties seek permission to hold events at a particular venue.
The first division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan made the suggestion when a petition, filed by the TVK, challenging certain provisions of the standard operating procedure (SOP) issued by the state government came up for hearing. The court directed the state government to file a counter-affidavit to the petition within three weeks, and adjourned the hearing accordingly.
The petition, filed by TVK joint general secretary CTR Nirmalkumar, prayed for the court to stay the operation of clauses 6 (c) and 8 (g) 1 of the G.O. issued on January 5, 2026, and declare the clauses as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of the principles of natural justice, and consequently, direct the respondents to notify a fresh SOP.
Senior counsel P V Balasubramaniam, representing the petitioner, submitted that certain provisions are discriminatory as they adopt a “differential treatment” to recognised and unrecognised parties. He alleged that the SOP passes the responsibility of ensuring safety and security of the participants and crowd control on to the organisers of the event.
The bench questioned as to what was wrong in the provisions of the SOP. “A lot of political parties have been mushrooming not with the intention of contesting the polls but to avail of the benefits like exemption from income tax under the relevant laws,” the bench commented.
It asked the TVK counsel – is it inappropriate to give priority to the recognised political parties having a long history of contesting the elections and succeeding in getting their men elected as MPs and MLAs? Additional Advocate General Ravindran submitted that most of the political parties have accepted the SOP, but the TVK alone is raising objections.
He noted that the petitioner-party had conducted two public meetings after the SOP came into effect and it had shown the number of likely participants as 4,999 while seeking permission, with a view to escape the clutches of the SOP which applies for a crowd of 5,000 and above.