The judgment emphasized the fundamental right of freedom of expression and the importance of allowing public meetings as an essential feature of democracy, cautioning against arbitrary restrictions on the right to freedom of speech.

In these two writ petitions, though the cause of action and the facts leading to the filing of the respective writ petitions are different, I propose to deal and dispose of both the writ petitions by a common judgment, in view of an important common legal issue which arises for consideration. In order to appreciate the correctness or otherwise of the stand taken by the respondent/police Department, it would be of considerable relevance to deal with both the writ petitions by a common judgment. The common issue is that the petitioners are aggrieved by the rejection of their request to conduct a protest meeting and the issue involves as to how far the police can refuse to grant permission to hold such meetings.

2. W.P.No.3210 of 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the first writ petition):

In this writ petition, the petitioner claims to be the Founder President of the Indian People's Party. Their aims are stated to be inter alia to fight for the rights and welfare of the minorities and the down-trodden members of the Society. Elders of his community established the Quaide Milleth College at Chennai. According to the petitioner, one Dawood Mia Khan took over as the Secretary and Correspondent. It is alleged that he was attempting to convert the said public institution as a private institution of his own. He is alleged to have expelled many elders who were members of the community and have inducted many of his own family people as members of the society. He was collecting compulsory donations from the poor students and was also indulging in several irregularities. The parents and the general public have taken several steps before the authorities and sent representations to all political parties. As the petitioner found substantial basis for the charges, he proposed to organise a Dharna in front of Government Guest House at Chepauk on 5.1.2005 from 11.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. A representation was forwarded to the respondent. The petitioner had to postpone the date in view of the Tsunami tragedy and permission to hold the meeting on a subsequent date was pursued. The request was, however, rejected by the impugned letter dated 17.1.2005. Hence, the writ petition praying a Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order and to direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to organise the protest at any place at Chennai.

3. Mr.Sirajudeen, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the refusal on the part of the police was arbitrary and unreasonable. The reasons given for rejection were not sustainable. The reason that holding the protest would result in traffic congestion is without any basis. The place where the meeting was to be held was one of the specific places identified and earmarked by the police themselves to hold such protests and public meetings. The situation of the place is such that it would not result in any traffic congestion. The second reason that there was possibility of the rival groups creating law and order situation was only invented for the purpose of denying the request of the petitioner and was not at all bona fide. It was a part of democracy to air rival views and the fact that there are rival groups cannot be a reason for denying permission. The right to express grievances in public is a fundamental right and cannot be denied by the police in an arbitrary manner. The further ground that the petitioner may approach the Court or other authorities for redressal of the grievances is also not a matter for the police and is not an excuse for refusing permission.

4. Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the Commissioner of Police, contended that the petitioner has to satisfactorily show that he has pursued all remedies open to him otherwise than to make a public demonstration. The petitioner had not shown that he had taken any earlier efforts to bring the issue/grievances before the appropriate authorities. The right to hold the demonstration cannot be stated to be unconditional. A