Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 1404
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. CHANDRU
Pugazendhi Thangaraj
Versus
The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City Police, Chennai & Another
W.P.NO.23467 of 2010
Decided on : 14-03-2011
For the Petitioner:S. Doraisamy for K. Surendar, Advocates. For the Respondents: M. Dhandapani, Spl. G.P.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the protection of constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression, the imposition of reasonable restrictions, and the interpretation of laws related to support for banned organizations.
Headnote:
LTTE - Denial of Permission for Signature Campaign - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Chennai City Police Act - UAPA, Section 13(1)(b) and 13(2) - Freedom of Speech under Article 19(1)(a) - Reasonable Restrictions under Article 19(2) - Support to Banned Organization - Supreme Court Precedents on Membership and Support to Banned Organizations
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a freelance journalist and film director, sought permission to conduct a signature campaign to appeal for the removal of the ban on LTTE. The request was denied by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, citing violation of the Chennai City Police Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The petitioner challenged the denial in a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the denial of permission to be unjustified and violative of the petitioner's constitutional rights. It emphasized the petitioner's legitimate intention to express public opinion and the lack of evidence to deem the activity illegal or unlawful. The court directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to conduct the signature campaign with sufficient protection.
Issues: 1. Whether the denial of permission for the signature campaign was justified under the Chennai City Police Act and UAPA. 2. Whether the petitioner's constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression were violated.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of UAPA, Section 13(1)(b) and 13(2), and emphasized the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) and the imposition of reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). It also considered Supreme Court precedents on membership and support to banned organizations to support its decision.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to permit the petitioner to conduct the signature campaign near Panagal Maligai, Saidapet, with sufficient protection.
1. The short question that arises for consideration in the present writ petition is whether the order of the respondent Commissioner of Police, Chennai City in denying the request made by the petitioner for conducting a "signature campaign" with reference to an appeal to the Government of India to remove the ban on "Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam" (LTTE) in a public place, by the exercise of his power under Section 41 of the Chennai City Police Act is justified?
2. The petitioner is a freelance journalist and a film director. He had started an organization called "Karuthurimaikkalam", a forum for right of expression in the year 2008. According to the petitioner, "Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam" (for short LTTE) was prohibited under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short UAPA). The petitioner finds the said ban was repugnant to democracy and wanted to send a join representation to the Governor of Tamil Nadu expressing the opinion of general public. Therefore, in order to mobilise opinion of the public on the said issue, he organized a signature campaign on 19.10.2010 from 4.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. By the said campaign, an appeal will be made to the people who are passers by to express their opinion by signing a joint memorandum. The venue was fixed near Panagal Maligai at Saidapet.
3. The petitioner gave a representation on 15.10.2010 seeking permission to conduct the campaign. However, by the impugned order, the petitioner's request was denied mainly on two reasons. The first was that under Section 41, an application will have to be made before five days of the programme for which permission was sought for. Since the petitioner's request was made only four days before, the application was not in order. Not stopping with that, the respondents had also stated that any meeting, demonstration or signature campaign in support of the banned organization is an offence under law. Therefore, permission was refused. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition came to be filed.
4. When the matter came up on 19.10.2010, notice was directed to be given to the learned Government Pleader. Subsequently, the matter was adjourned from time to time. Finally, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit, dated 10.1.2011. They have also produced a copy of the ban order notified by the State Government vide G.O.Ms.No.446, Public (SC) Department, dated 17.05.2010 containing the Government of India's notification, dated 14.5.2010 banning the LTTE under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
5. Since earlier the programme was scheduled to take place on 19.10.2010 and that date has also expired on account of various adjournments made in the writ petition, the counsel for the petitioner filed a memo stating that should this court grant permission, they are willing to have the campaign on 30.03.2011 at 4.00 p.m. in the same venue.
6. Mr.S.Doraisamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the respondent police was illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(c) and 21 of the Constitution of India. The programme organized by the petitioner is only to make a joint appeal to the Governor and that the denial order stultify the democracy. The signature campaign was intended to reflect the voice of public at large and by no stretch of imagination, by the signature campaign any disturbance to the public peace will arise. The impugned order is also contrary to various judgments of this court.
7. Reference was made to a judgment of this court in P.Nedumaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 1999 (1) LW (Crl.) 7 and also a division bench judgment of this court in C.J.Rajan Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police reported in (2008) 3 MLJ 926. He also referred to a division bench judgment of this court made in H.C.P.No.260 of 2009, dated 17.04.2009 in S.James Peter Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, The Secretary to Government, Publi
