The Bombay High Court has declined to issue immediate directions to the Maharashtra government over apprehensions of possible disruption in Mumbai concerning the proposed visit of Respondent No. 4 along with his supporters.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait M. Sethna said there was presently no concrete situation before the Court warranting preventive directions. The Bench, however, made it clear that any protest must comply with the Public Meetings, Agitations and Processions Rules, 2025.
The petition was filed by Nilesh Ramchandra Dhanukar and others against the State of Maharashtra and other respondents. The petitioners sought urgent hearing, relying on an earlier Bombay High Court order concerning large-scale agitation and a proposed Maratha reservation protest at Azad Maidan in August 2025.
Advocate Mayur Khandeparkar, appearing for the petitioners, argued that a similar situation had arisen again in Mumbai. He submitted that Respondent No. 4 was inclined to visit Mumbai along with his supporters and apprehended that this could result in chaos or disruption to the city's normal functioning. The petitioners therefore sought directions to the State machinery to ensure that public life was not obstructed.
The petitioners also relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Amit Sahni (Shaheen Bagh, In Re) v. Commissioner of Police, which held that peaceful protest is protected but public roads and spaces cannot be occupied indefinitely in a manner that causes serious inconvenience to the public.
Advocate General Dr. Milind Sathe told the Bench that Respondent No. 4 had not obtained permission to organise any public rally or protest as required under Rule 25 of the 2025 Rules. He assured the Court that the State machinery would act according to law if any unwarranted situation arose.
The Bench found that the petitioners' apprehension was, at this stage, based on past experience rather than any situation that had actually emerged.
"There is no such situation as yet which has emerged for us to take cognizance and issue appropriate directions in the matter. However, we expect, in case, any such protest is organized, the same would be within the mandate of Rule 25 of the Said Rules."
The Court also observed that Respondent No. 4 was a responsible and law-abiding citizen and expected him to remain conscious of the legal requirements while exercising his rights.
The Bench additionally noted concerns regarding Respondent No. 4's health as he was stated to be on hunger strike, and expected the State to take appropriate steps in case of a medical emergency.
The Bombay High Court issued notice to the respondents, returnable on September 24, 2026, and directed that the matter be listed for further consideration on the same date.
Case Title: Nilesh Ramchandra Dhanukar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 27163 of 2026
Judge: Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait M. Sethna
Decision Date: September 11, 2026
