Claiming a fundamental right to use a loud speaker at public meetings to voice. his views, petitioner seeks to restrain respondents from interfering with the use of a loud speaker by him.

2, Petitioner belongs to a denomination of Christianity, known as 'Knanaya' Christians. Thomas of Cana came to India from Mesopo Uomia in 344 A.D. and organised the sought eastern church of Syrian Christians, as St. Thomas organised the north Eastern Church inAJD. 52. The followers of Thomas of Cana, came to be known as 'Knanaya' Christians. Some of the Kananaya Christians follow the rites of the Catholic Church, while others follow the Marthomite rites. Members of 'Knanaya' denomination do not marry outside that denomination, it is said - with a view to preserve the purity of stock. This practice is denounced by petitioner. In his view, a Kananaya Christian should be free to marry anyone, professing the faith of Christianity. To propagate his views in this regard, petitioner sought permission to hold meetings using sound amplifiers. Second respondent-Sub Inspector of Police, granted permission (Exl.P1), but withdrew the permission later, apprehending that views of the petitioner may incite to violence the conservatives in the Church. Incidentally, this apprehension or misapprehension, has been proved wrong, as a meeting could be held pursuant to interim orders of this court, admittedly without any disturbance.

3. Petitioner submits that freedom of speech and expressions imply freedom to use amplifying devices and cited the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Indulal v. State (AIR 1963 Guj. 259) in support of his contention. The Gujarat High Court relied on the opinion of the Judicial Committee in Francis v. Chief of Police ((1973) 2 AER 251) to hold that freedom of speech included freedom to circulate one's views, in any manner. The Allahabad High Court however took a contrary view, in Rajnikant v. State (AIR 1958 All. 360). M.M.Secrvai (Constitutional Law (I) 3rd Edition Page 504) prefers the view of the Gujarat High Court, There is also a decision of this Court in D. Ananda Prabhu v. District Collector (1974 KLT 291) following the view of the Gujarat High Court. But this Court did not consider the question whether a fundamental right was involved in the matter of using a loud speaker. The learned judge assumed that there was a fundamental right, and proceeded to consider the reasonableness of a restriction imposed. After referring to the decision of the Gujarat High Court, the learned judge observed:

"It appears to me that the right conferred by Art.19 (l)(a) ... have to be understood in the same way (as in Francis's case). I do not propose to examine this aspect, any further." (emphasis supplied)

No decision of the Apex Court on this aspect was brought to my notice.

4. The core question is whether the Constitution guarantees a right to use a sound amplifying device, or whether use of such a device is part of the right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech and expression are rights cherished by all free societies. That freedom implies not only freedom to express the thought we approve of, but freedom to express the thought, we hate. A debate of ideas is essential in any free society. No one can forbid legitimate efforts to change the mind of society by expression of views, or advocating different persuasions or even by questioning the existing order. J.S. Mill said:

"If we never hear questions, we will forget the answers"

Maintenance of opportunity for free political discussion is thus a cardinal principle of our Constitutional system. History bears witness to this process. Debate, brought in its wake, new thoughts and new echoes. Time has upset many fighting faiths. What was once regarded blasphemy, became the truth of another generation,

5. As observed in Abrams v, U.S.(250 U.S.616):

"Men may come to believe, even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct, that the ultimate good desired is better reached by