2006 Supreme(Kar) 891

Karnataka High Court
K.NISSAR AHMED - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA - Respondent
Decided On : 11-18-06
Writ Petition No. 13928 of 2006 (GM-PIL).

Headnote:Karnataka Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 - Rituals to be held at a religious place - Directions to Government to maintain law and order in view of communal riots that may occur in view of - Held, Government knows its duties better - Court cannot issue any directions.

       Cases Referred: (2004) 4 SCC 684.

       Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Jurisdiction under - Scope of - Public Interest Litigation - Rituals to be performed at a holy place - Communal riots expected by petitioners - Directions to Government sought for maintenance of law and order at the place - Permissibility. [Cyriac Joseph CJ, and S. Abdul Nazeer, J]: No person whether he is Minister or M.L.A is above the law and everyone is obliged to abide by the law irrespective of his status and office. The law enforcing agencies are bound to take effective steps to prevent violation of the law and to punish those who violate the law. No Government worth its name can afford to neglect its duty to uphold rule of law and to maintain law and order. It is not necessary for this Court to consider or decide whether the proposed rituals and furncitons are permitted under Annexure-D and Annexure-H orders. It is for the Government or the District Administration to examine the matter and to take appropriate decision and to ensure that only the rituals and functions permitted under Annexure-D and H orders are allowed to be conducted by both Hindus and Muslims. We have no reason to doubt the bonafides or earnestness of the Government and the District Administration in this regard. Hence we do not consider it just or proper or necessary to issue the directions sought by the petitioners in the Writ Petition.

       Referred: (2004) 4 SCC 684.

       Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Law and order - Directions to Government to maintain - When and when not permissible. [Cyriac Joseph, CJ. and S. Abdul Nazeer, J]: Dilatory Settled Principles: Courts should not normally interfere with matters relating to law and order which is primarily the domain of the administrative authorities concerned. They are by and large the best to assess and to handle the situation depending upon the peculiar needs and necessities within their special knowledge. Their decision may involve to some extent an element of subjectivity on the basis of materials before them. Past conduct and antecedents of a person or group or an organisation may certainly provide sufficient material or basis for the action contemplated on a reasonable expectation of possible turn of events, which may need to be avoided in public interest and maintenance of law and order. No person, however big he may assume or claim to be, should be allowed, irrespective of the position he may assume or claim to hold in public life, to either act in a manner or make speeches which would destroy secularism recognised by the Constitution of India. Secularism is not to be confused with communal or religious concepts of an individual or a groups of persons. It means that the State should have no religion of is own and no one could proclaim to make the State have one such or endeavour to create a thereocrativ state. persons belonging to different religious live throughout the length and breadth of the country. Each person, whatever be his religion, must get an assurance from the State that he has the protection of law freely to profess, practise and propagate his religion and freedom of conscience. otherwise, the rule of law will become replaced by individual perceptions of one s own presumptions of good social order. Therefore, whenever the authorities concerned in charge of law and order find that a persons speeches or actions are likely to trigger comunal antagonism and hatred resulting in fissiprous tendencies gaining foothod, undrmining and affecting communal harmoney, prohibitory orders need necessarily to be passed, to efectively avert such untoward happenings. Communal harmony should not be made to suffer and be made dependent upon the will of an individual or a group of individuals, whatever be their religion, be it of a minority or that of the majority. persons belonging to different religious must feel assured that they can live in peace with persons belonging to other religius. While permitting holding of a meeting orgainsed by groups or an indiviual, which is likely to disturb public peace, tranquility and orderlines, irrespective of the name; cover and methodology it may assume and adopt, the administration has a duty to find out who the speakers and participants and are also to take into account previous instances and the antecedents involving or concerning those persons. If they feel that the presence or participaton of any person in the meeting or congregation would be objectionable, for some patent or latent reasons as well as the past track record of such happenings in other places involving such participants, necessary prohibitory orders can be passed. Quick decisions and swift as well as effective action necessitated in such cases may not justify or permit the authorities to give prior opporutnity or consideration at length of the pros and cons. The imminent need to intervene instantly, having regard to the sensivity and permicipusly perilus consequences it may result in if not prevented forthwith, cannot be lost sight of the valuable and cherished right of freedom of expression and speech may at times hae to be subjected to reasonable subordination to social interests, needs and necessities to preserve the very core of democratic life-preservation of public order and rule of law. At some such grave situation at least the decision as to the need and necessity to take prohibitory actions must be left to the discretion of those entrusted with the duty of maintaining law and order, and interposition of Courts-unless a concrete case of abuse or exercise of such sweeping powers for extraceous considerations by the authority concerned or that such authority was sown to act at the behest of those in power, and interference as a matter of course and as though adjudicating an appeal, will defeat the very purpose of legislation and legislative intent [(2004) 4 SCC 684].

       Cases Referred: (2004) 4 SCC 684.

       Landlord and Tenant - Quit Notice - Mode of service.

       Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 - Section 27(2) (e) and (r) - Legality of order of trial court - Landlord/ petitioners not producing cogent and corroborative evidence with regard to title and also documents like lease deed and rent receipts - Trial court opined that they failed to establish jural relationship of landlord and tenant - Hence, courts below recorded a finding that there is a complicated dispute as to title - Held, it is manifest on face of orders that courts below have not committed any error, illegality or material irregularity.