Back
Judges : SANKARAN NAIR
Venu - Appellant
Versus
Director General of Police - Respondent
Case No : O.P.No. 5391 of 1990
Decided On : 06/15/1990
Advocates Appeared :
AX, Varghese For Petitioner Government Pleader (Molly Jacob) For Respondents
Freedom of Expression - Public Meeting - The court held that while freedom of expression is a constitutional guarantee, it is subject to considerations of public order, morality, and decency. The use of loudspeakers is not considered a fundamental right, and the indiscriminate use of loudspeakers cannot be permitted due to the accepted danger of sound pollution. The court emphasized that every freedom has its frontiers and can be restricted on grounds of public order, morality, and decency.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to grant permission for a public meeting at Kodungallur and other places. The petitioner claimed that the permission was not likely to be granted due to the cause he proposed to advocate, which he believed was not palatable to the respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the second prayer for holding a public meeting at other places subsequently was vague and could not be granted. The court emphasized that the use of loudspeakers is not a fundamental right and that freedom of expression is subject to considerations of public order, morality, and decency. The court did not grant the relief prayed for but directed the respondents to consider whether permission could be granted based on the facts of the case.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's request for permission to hold a public meeting, the use of loudspeakers, and the restrictions on freedom of expression based on public order, morality, and decency.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the understanding that freedom of expression is subject to limitations of public order, morality, and decency. The use of loudspeakers was not considered a fundamental right, and the court emphasized that every freedom has its frontiers and can be restricted on grounds of public order, morality, and decency.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, but the respondents were directed to consider whether permission for the public meeting could be granted based on the facts of the case.
Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to compel respondents, to grant him permission to hold a public meeting at Kodungallur on 16-6-1990, and at other places subsequently. The second prayer, vague as it is, cannot be granted.
2. The meeting at Kodungallur is slated for. Tomorrow. Petitioner would submit that he made a request by Ext.P1 on 11-6-1990, that no orders have been passed thereon, and that permission is not likely to be granted. The reason for this according to petitioner, is that the cause he proposes to advocate, is not palatable to the respondents. Counsel submits that petitioner is guaranteed freedom of expression, and that this includes the freedom to express his views through a loudspeaker. Counsel did not support his contention on the basis of any authority. I, for one, am not inclined to hold that the right to use a loudspeaker is a fundamental right in itself. Sound pollution is an accepted danger, and indiscriminate use of loudspeakers cannot be permitted. It is for the authority to satisfy itself, whether in a given situation a loudspeaker can be used.
3. As for freedom of expression, it is a constitutional guarantee and a prime perception, in a democratic society, however subject to considerations of public order, morality and decency. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes made the classic statement, "if there is any principle of the constitution, that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought - not free thought for those who agree with us, but freedom of thought that we hate." Great truths were once branded blasphemy. The best test of truth is the power of thought to get it accepted, in the competition of the market. The human mind is the market place of new ideas. No one can forbid efforts to change the mind of the country. But, every freedom has its frontiers. It is liable to be clipped, on grounds of public order, morality and decency, as already stated. Disaffection, sedition, riots, etc. will be valid grounds for restraint.
4. Without even an opportunity to the respondents to put forward their case, I am not inclined to grant the relief prayed for. However, respondents will consider whether on the facts of the case, permission sought for could be granted. I express no opinion on the merits. Subject to this direction, writ petition is dismissed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
