Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 2522
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. DHANAPALAN
V. Manimaran
Versus
Inspector of Police
W.P.No.12670 of 2010
Decided on : 29-06-2010
For the Petitioner:S. Rajinikanth, Advocate.
For the Respondent: N. Senthilkumar, Additional Government Pleader.
The exercise of power by the respondent must strictly adhere to the permissible grounds for restricting fundamental rights, and a mere apprehension of disturbance is not sufficient to deny the right to hold a demonstration.
Headnote:
Freedom of Speech - Right to Demonstration - Article 19(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Constitution of India - Section 30(2) of the Police Act
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Secretary of a political party, sought permission to hold a demonstration against police atrocities, which was refused by the respondent due to law and order concerns and hindrance to vehicular traffic.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the refusal of permission violated the petitioner's fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Constitution of India and Section 30(2) of the Police Act.
Issues: Violation of fundamental rights, denial of freedom of speech and assembly, refusal of permission without proper grounds.
Ratio Decidendi: A mere apprehension of disturbance and law and order issues is not sufficient to deny the right to hold a demonstration. The refusal must strictly fall within the permissible grounds for restricting fundamental rights.
Final Decision: The impugned order refusing permission was set aside, and the court directed the respondent to grant permission for any future dates if the petitioner applies.
By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal.
2. Heard, Mr.S. Rajinikanth, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.N.Senthilkumar, learned Additional Government Reader for respondent.
3. What is challenged in this writ petition is the order passed by the respondent on 16. 2010 wherein the petitioner’s request for holding a demonstration on 16. 2010 has been rejected considering the implications of law and order problem and hindrance to the free flow of vehicular traffic.
.4. According to the petitioner, he is the Secretary of Viduthalai Chiruthaikal Katchi (hereinafter called as VCK) Kattukannallur Camp. One Mr.K.P. Baskaran who is the convener of VCK was implicated in a case by the respondent Police. Therefore, they have decided to hold a demonstration in a democratic manner against the police atrocities on 16. 2010 at about 3.00 p.m. near the Bus stand of Kannamangalam, Tlruvannamalai District. A representation was submitted by the petitioner on 16. 2010 requesting the respondent to grant permission to hold demonstration and the same was refused in the impugned order dated 16. 2010. The petitioner states that the above order has been passed without giving any opportunity and the order is unjust and illegal and it is in violation of Article 19(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Constitution of India and also Section 30(2) of the Police Act. As no opportunity was given to the petitioner, the order violates principles of natural justice also. Therefore, the petitioner has sought to quash the order.
5. The respondent has filed a counter, wherein it is stated that the petitioner is the Secretary of VCK Camp, Kattukarnnallur and it is not correct to state that one K.P. Baskaran was falsely implicated in the case by the respondent police. In fact, only on the basis of the complaint which made out cognizable offences, the said case was registered against K.P. Baskaran. For registering a case against one person on the basis of the complaint which made out cognizable offences, the petitioner’s party have taken a decision to hold demonstration in a democratic manner against the police atrocities on 16. 2010 at 3.00 p.m. near bus stand, which is against law. Further, it is stated that the said KP. Baskaran was not arrested on the basis of his affiliation to VCK whereas the case was registered against him on the basis of his individual capacity for the offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating committed by him. It is further stated that the petitioner has given a petition on 16. 2010 to grant permission to hold demonstration on 16. 2010. Considering the implications of law and order problem and hindrance to the free flow of vehicular traffic, permission was refused after duly explaining the reasons for refusal. So, it is not correct to state that the order dated 16. 2010, refusing permission is done without giving any opportunity to the petitioner and that the said order is unjust and illegal. It is further stated that the impugned order refusing to hold demonstration is not violative of Article 19(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Constitution of India and also not violative of Section 3(2) of the Police Act and the principles of natural justice. The impugned order was served on the petitioner on 16. 2010. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner should have approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police or the Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai seeking permission to hold such demonstration. Without availing such remedies, the petitioner is not entitled to approach this Court. It is apparent that, the petitioner, in order to get some publicity and with some ulterior motive has come forward with this writ petition.
.6. In the counter of the respondent, it is stated that on 6. 2010, many persons including Chinnapaiyan, S. Sivaprakasam, Gengan, Arjunan, Bharathi, Amsa and 23 others have given petitions to the District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District stating that the said K.P. Baskaran
