Balancing the right to peaceful assembly with public safety concerns and accommodating authorities' concerns through negotiation and imposition of conditions

Writ petition praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirappalli City, the 3rd respondent herein culminating in Na.Ka.No.148-1/A/T/DB/L&O/T.D./2002 dated 7.8.2002 quash the same and direct the 3rd and 4th respondents to permit the petitioner to take out a peaceful and regulated procession on 12.8.2002 on the route set out in the application dated 29-7-2002.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would submit that he is the general Secretary of Dalit Panthers Movement known as "Viduthulai Siruthaigal" a social organisation, meant for development of the scheduled caste and minorities in Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Bombay; that they are fighting for the rights of the Dalits and the minorities; that while so in the month of April 2002, in Thinnam village near Trichy, scheduled caste persons, viz. Murugesan and Ramaswamy were compelled by one Rajalakshmi ex-president of Thinnam village and her husband Subramanian to eat the human exorela; that in spite of the local police informed of the incident, the police did not initiate action against the miscreants and ultimately after intervention of the petitioner organisation, they registered a case under the provisions of Scheduled caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989; that it was decided in their council meeting to conduct a procession at Trichy on 12.8.2002 to condemn the action of the above caste out fits who are responsible for the said atrocious act; that it was further resolved that the cadre from all over Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh would assemble at the National College Ground, Trichy on 12,8.2002 at about 2 p.m. and from there to go on procession via Gandhi Market, Balakarai, Head Post office, Railway Station and Khadikraft to reach the place of the public meeting at about 5 p.m that day; that in spite of a letter addressed to third and fourth respondents seeking permission with assurance that the procession would be peaceful and would conform the instructions of the police, the third and fourth respondent police turned out the petitioner's request to take out the procession and hence this writ petition seeking the relief extracted supra.

3. Today, when the above writ petition was taken up for consideration in the presence of the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner movement and the learned Additional Government Pleader (Writs) representing the respondents, the learned senior Counsel would exhort that it is denial of the due guaranteed under the Constitution for the petitioner by the police which cannot occur in a free society like that of ours and would also cite a Judgment of a single Judge of this court delivered in Nedumaran, P. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 2000 Writ L.R. 205 wherein a similar procession was permitted on certain conditions imposed by the learned Judge, following which, a similar order could be passed by this court also in the case in hand permitting the petitioner to take out the procession.

4. In the course of arguments, the learned Senior counsel would also point out Section 41(4) of the Madras City police Act, 1888 wherein it is prescribed:

"Except in cases where immediate action is necessary for the preservation of the public peace or public safety, no order refusing to grant permission shall be passed under clause (b) of sub-section (3) without giving the person concerned an opportunity of appearing before the Commissioner either in person or by pleader and showing cause against the order refusing to grant permission and the Commissioner shall record in writing the reason for such order."

5. Learned senior counsel would lament that even without an opportunity that is contemplated under this provision of law, the respondents police have rejected the request of the petitioner, which is not only against the dictum of law, but also against all nor