SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1974 Supreme(Ker) 36

Judges : GEORGE VADAKKEL
D.ANANTHA PRABHU - Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND ANOTHER - Respondent
Case No : O. P. No. 1129 of 1974
Decided On : 03/05/1974
Advocates Appeared :
K. Ramakumar; For Petitioner Government Pleader; For Respondents

The judgment establishes the principle that the ban on the use of loudspeakers at a public meeting is an infringement of the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression, and such a ban must be a reasonable restriction justifiable under clause (2) of Art.19. The judgment also emphasizes the dangers of conferring arbitrary discretionary powers and the violation of Art.14 of the Constitution due to discrimination in granting permissions.

Headnote:

FREEDOM OF SPEECH - PUBLIC ASSEMBLY - ART.19(1)(A) - ART.19(1)(B) - KERALA POLICE ACT, 1960, SECTIONS 18 AND 19 - The judgment discusses the petitioner's plea for mandamus to use loudspeakers at a public meeting and the imposition of conditions by the District Collector and City Commissioner of Police. The court examines the fundamental rights guaranteed by Art.19(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution, the right to assemble peaceably, and the freedom of speech and expression. It also considers the jurisdiction of the authorities to impose conditions and the absence of guidelines for such regulations. The court concludes that the general public has the right to assemble peaceably and without arms at the Durbar Hall Ground, and the ban on the use of loudspeakers is an infringement of the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. The court also finds that the ban is not a reasonable restriction justifiable under clause (2) of Art.19. The judgment further highlights the dangers of conferring arbitrary discretionary powers and the violation of Art.14 of the Constitution due to discrimination in granting permissions. The court expunges the illegal condition and grants relief to the petitioner.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Secretary of the Cochin Branch of the Rashtreeya Sevak Sangh, sought mandamus to use loudspeakers at a public meeting and challenged the imposition of conditions by the District Collector and City Commissioner of Police. The petitioner's plea was based on the fundamental rights guaranteed by Art.19(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the general public has the right to assemble peaceably and without arms at the Durbar Hall Ground, and the ban on the use of loudspeakers is an infringement of the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. The court also concluded that the ban is not a reasonable restriction justifiable under clause (2) of Art.19. The court further highlighted the dangers of conferring arbitrary discretionary powers and the violation of Art.14 of the Constitution due to discrimination in granting permissions. The court expunged the illegal condition and granted relief to the petitioner.

Issues: The primary issues addressed by the court include the right of the general public to assemble peaceably and without arms, the freedom of speech and expression, the jurisdiction of authorities to impose conditions, the absence of guidelines for regulations, and the reasonableness of the ban on the use of loudspeakers.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of fundamental rights guaranteed by Art.19(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution, the examination of the reasonableness of restrictions under clause (2) of Art.19, and the application of the principles of equality before the law and the dangers of conferring arbitrary discretionary powers.

Final Decision: The court expunged the illegal condition and granted relief to the petitioner, allowing the use of loudspeakers at the public meeting.

Judgment :-

1. The petitioner, who is the Secretary of the Cochin Branch of the Rashtreeya Sevak Sangh (for short, Sevak Sangh) moves for a mandamus to direct respondents Nos.1 and 2, the District Collector, Ernakulam, and the City Commissioner of Police, Ernakulam, respectively, to sanction the use of Mike Loud Speakers or such other Amplifier appliances by the petitioner and the organisation be represents. He also prays for a certiorari quashing Ext P2 proceedings of the 1st respondent. By Ext. P2 proceedings dated 15-2-1974 the Ist respondent accorded sanction to use the Durbar Hall Ground in this city for conducting the annual day celebrations of the Sevak Sangh subject to three conditions, the first of which is that "mike, loud speaker etc. should not be used at any time". The petitioner's complaint is against the imposition of this condition, and he seeks the aid of this Court to use mike, loud speakers etc. at the annual day celebrations of the Sevak Sangh to beheld on 10-3-1974 (it is averred in the petition and submitted at the bar, that the celebrations are decided to be conducted between 5 p. m and 8.30 p. m. on that day) at the Durbar Hall Ground. Mr. Ramakumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Art.19(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution and submits that the fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens by these clauses could be curtailed only in the manner provided for by clauses (2) and (3) of that article. The learned counsel also questions the jurisdiction of the Ist respondent to impose such a condition, and further attacks jurisdiction if any, on the ground that there are no standards or lines to guide and regulate the,exercise of jurisdiction. According to the learned Senior Government Counsel who appears on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner has no fundamental right to use mike and loud speakers in the Durbar Hall Ground which is Government property. He submits that administratively the power to regulate the user of the ground is vested in the Ist respondent, that he can impose any condition in exercise of his power to regulate the user, and can even refuse sanction to hold the celebrations without assigning any

reason.

2. The primary question that arises for consideration is whether members of the general public have a right to assemble peaceably and without arms (as envisaged in Art.19(1)(b)) in the Durbar Hall Ground. If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative a further question arises regarding the scope of

Art.19 (1)(a) which guarantees freedom of speech and expression; whether that freedom extends to use of mechanical or other contrivances to amplify sound and how far the State or its officers can regulate or restrict such user. Thirdly, this case raises the question whether in the absence of any guidelines (admittedly there are no rules or regulations or executive orders) the power, If any of the Ist respondent to sanction or not to sanction public assembly and/or the use of mike, loud speakers etc on Darbar Hall Ground is arbitrary as enabling him to discriminate between persons, without just classification.

3. Petitioner in Para.3 of his petition states as follows:

"The said around had been used on permission by the Sangh itself on many prior occasions in 1958, 1960, 1962 and 1971. The said ground is used not only by religious/ cultural organisations, but also by political parties for holding public meetings. On such occasions Microphone and Loud Speakers are freely used even till mid-night. On occasions like the festival in the adjoining Siva temple.

Amplifiers are used round the clock for about 7 days. Organisations such as the Chinmaya Mission and the Panthicost Sabha use the ground for religious discourses for continuous days using Loud Speakers usually between 5 and 8 P.M. About 15 days back the Panthicost was conducting one such function continuously for about 20 days".

These averments are substantially admitted in Para.2 and 9 of the counter affidavit of the Ist resp










































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top