Introduction:

In the Special Leave Petition (SLP) (Crl) No. 009176 – 009177 of 2025, titled M. Arasupandi v. The Commissioner of Police, the Supreme Court of India on June 19, 2025, declined to entertain a petition challenging the Madras High Court’s refusal to allow the use of Tamil Nadu’s existing e-pass portal for the upcoming religious event “Muruga Bakthargal Aanmeega Maanadu” scheduled to be held on June 22, 2025, in Madurai, Tamil Nadu. A two-judge bench comprising Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Prasanna B. Varale considered the matter during the partial court working days and observed that since the petitioner had not exhausted alternative remedies available under the High Court’s Letters Patent Appeal jurisdiction, the Supreme Court would not interfere at this stage. The case was presented by Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, who urged the Court to permit digital vehicle pass issuance, citing the national push for digital governance. However, the Court was not inclined to pass any directions, noting the logistical constraints presented by the State and clarifying that the judiciary cannot mandate a specific administrative mechanism where it lacks the operational capacity.

Arguments by the Petitioner:

Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra vociferously argued that in an era of widespread digital transformation, denying access to a readily available e-pass mechanism was both irrational and regressive. He highlighted that the Tamil Nadu Government already operates an e-pass portal used for various administrative purposes, and there is no legal or technical bar to leveraging the same system for issuing vehicle passes for the Lord Murugan Conference in Madurai. According to Luthra, the Madras High Court’s blanket denial to allow access to the e-pass portal contravenes the principles of reasonable administrative governance. He submitted that requiring devotees and participants to physically obtain vehicle passes 24 hours in advance from the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) is unduly burdensome, especially for elderly devotees, long-distance travelers, and working individuals. He further argued that such a condition infringes upon citizens’ right to freely practice religion and their mobility under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Luthra stated that the State’s explanation of “logistical issues” was vague and insufficient to justify denial of a digitized, efficient, and accessible method. Therefore, he urged the Supreme Court to intervene by directing the State to enable the e-pass mechanism to ensure efficient and equitable access to the religious event.

Arguments by the Respondents:

The respondents, including the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, defended the imposition of the requirement that vehicle passes for the Muruga Bakthargal Aanmeega Maanadu must be obtained physically at least 24 hours in advance. Represented by the State’s Additional Advocate General, the respondents contended that there were significant logistical difficulties in implementing a digital pass system on such short notice. The Additional Advocate General submitted that given the scale and nature of the event, which involves large gatherings, sensitive crowd control, and traffic management near key religious sites in Madurai, offline verification was necessary to prevent misuse and ensure smooth security operations. He pointed out that digital verification tools may not integrate seamlessly with on-ground security systems within the limited time before the event and that manual passes allowed greater flexibility in real-time crowd regulation. The respondents emphasized that administrative discretion and on-ground practicalities must be respected, and the judiciary should refrain from interfering with such operational decisions unless there is a manifest violation of rights. The respondents further pointed out that there was no absolute bar against attending the event and that the pass system was a regulatory mechanism for orderly participation, not a restriction on religious freedom.

Court’s Judgment:

After hearing both sides, the bench comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and Prasanna B. Varale observed that while the petitioner had raised certain legitimate concerns regarding digital accessibility and convenience, the Court must consider the institutional boundaries of judicial review and refrain from micromanaging administrative logistics, especially in time-sensitive public order arrangements. The bench was not inclined to grant any relief at this stage as the petitioner had not exhausted the available remedy under Letters Patent Appeal before the Madras High Court. The Supreme Court underscored that the principle of exhaustion of alternative remedies is integral to judicial discipline and hierarchy. It noted that the High Court had considered the issue and refused relief, and the petitioner ought to have first approached the appellate bench of the High Court itself.

Further, the Supreme Court posed a critical question to Senior Advocate Luthra—“How can you force them?”—reflecting its reluctance to issue a mandamus compelling the State to adopt a digital mode against their logistical assessment. The Court remarked that while e-governance is a laudable objective, it must not override the State’s assessment of its immediate operational capacity in sensitive public order contexts. Recognizing the petitioner’s insistence on an expedited digital solution, the Court acknowledged that technological constraints sometimes require phased implementation. Accepting the petitioner’s plea for liberty, the Court allowed the Special Leave Petition to be withdrawn with the option to pursue alternative remedies before the Madras High Court. Accordingly, the SLP was dismissed as withdrawn.