The freedom of speech and expression is subject to reasonable restrictions, and any reasonable restriction which has proximate and direct connection to public order shall be only to protect the right under Article 21. The power to regulate the procession and meeting lies with the police, and the reasons for such conclusion of the authority must be supported by materials and shall not be unreasonable or arbitrary.

1. As the issues raised in all these writ petitions are identical, they are disposed of by this common order.

2. The Petitioner in W.P. (MD) No. 9069 of 2005 is Dr. K. Krishnasamy, the President of Puthiya Tamilagam Political Party (hereinafter referred to as the “party”) and a former Member of the Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu. The said party is registered with the Election Commission of India under Section 29(A) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 on 15.12.1997. According to the petitioner, the said party is engaged in the upliftment of downtrodden sections of society irrespective of caste, creed and religion. In view of the ensuing elections of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, the party decided to conduct District Level Conferences in the southern districts of Tamil Nadu. In the first phase, the conferences were organised to focus on the issues of land for landless and job of jobless people belonging to the oppressed and suppressed sections of the society. The conferences were to highlight the requirement of bringing in suitable legislation by the Central and State Governments to fulfill the said objectives and also for the purpose of fund raising. Such District Level Conferences were planned in the nine southern districts of Tamil Nadu Commencing from the month of October to December, 2005. The first such conference was planned and proposed to be held on 16.10.2005 in Virudhunagar District at Rajapalayam. Accordingly, an application for permission dated 19.9.2005 was made to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rajapalayam by the Rajapalayam Town Organising Secretary of the party to conduct the procession from Nehru Statue upto Jawahar Maidan. A further request dated 27.9.2005 was also made to the Superintendent of Police of the District by the same Secretary to conduct a public meeting in Jawahar Maidan. By the impugned orders dated 27.9.2005 and 28.9.2005, the requests were rejected.

3. W.P.(MD) No.9362 of 2005 was also filed by the President of the same party. The Tirunelveli District Organising Secretary of the party made a request on 5.10.2005 to the Superintendent of Police of the District for permission to conduct the procession from Dr. Ambedkar Nagar upto Congress Centenary Maidan in Sankarankoil. By the impugned order dated 13.10.2005 the said request was rejected.

4. The petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.10223 of 2005 is the District Joint Secretary of the same party, Ramanathapuram. Similarly, a request was made to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Paramakudi seeking permission to conduct the procession and public meeting and the request was rejected by the impugned order dated 23.10.2005. The petitioners have questioned the above orders of rejection in the writ petitions.

5. The impugned orders are basically questioned on the ground that (1) they are arbitrary and violative of the fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b) and 21 of the Constitution of India. (2) They were passed with a prejudiced mind relying on extraneous consideration; and (3) the petitioners were not granted opportunity before passing the orders as per sub-section (4) of Section 41 of the Madras City Police Act.

6. Mr. K. Chandru, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners fairly conceded that the petitioners do not press the challenge as to the orders rejecting the request to take out procession in the Highways. The learned Senior Counsel advanced his argument only in respect of the orders of rejection to hold the meetings. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the cause for conduct of the public meetings is to provide land for landless and job for jobless people belonging to the oppressed and suppressed sections of society. The further object is to insist that such oppressed and suppressed people do not want food for work, but they want land. The object is for legitimate and great purpose. The party has fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) to express the grievance and demands of