The right to hold public meetings is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order, and the State must establish a live link between the restriction and public order.

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 4 June 2013 on the file of Assistant Commissioner of Police, Adyar, whereby and whereunder, the application submitted by the petitioner for permission to conduct a public meeting with police protection, on 8 June 2013, near Telephone Exchange, Adyar, was rejected, on the ground of law and order problem.

The facts :-

2. The petitioner is the Circle Secretary of Pattali Makkal Katchi, (PMK), a political party, registered with the Election Commission of India. The petitioner used to organize public meetings to spread the message of the party and with a view to propagate its ideas to the people at large. The petitioner wanted to conduct a public meeting on 8 June 2013 at Shastry Nagar, Adyar, Chennai. The petitioner therefore, submitted an application before the third respondent requesting permission to conduct the meeting with police protection. The said application was taken up by the second respondent and ultimately, it was rejected. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court.

Summary of submissions:-

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions:-

(i) The application was rejected on two grounds. The first ground relates to the violence at Dharmapuri and the second ground relates to the Marakkanam incident. The Dharmapuri incident was communal in nature and it does not have the involvement of the petitioner or any other political party. The Marakkanam incident has nothing to do with PMK. The meeting was organized by Vanniyar sangam alone and the members of PMK were not involved in the said incident. Therefore, the second respondent was not correct in denying permission on account of such flimsy reasons.

(ii) PMK is a political organization, registered before the Election Commissionof India. The party is recognized as a regional party. The party being a responsible political organization have got every right to propagate its views to the people of this State. The second respondent has no right to prevent the petitioner from conducting public meeting.

(iii) The right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a)(b) of the Constitution of India cannot be curtailed unless there are valid reasons. The order, directing the petitioner not to conduct meeting, would affect his freedom of speech and expression.

(iv) The petitioner and his political party were not involved in the alleged violence. Therefore, the second respondent was not correct in rejecting the application on the ground of possible violence.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment dated 22 June 2012 in W.P.No.15425 of 2012 (M.Jayaraj vs. The Superintendent of Police, Villupuram and two others), in support of his contention that under similar circumstances, this Court rejected the contention taken by the police by projecting a case of law and order problem and directed the police to give permission to hold public meeting.

5. The submissions of the learned Advocate General are as follows :-

(i) There were large scale violence in and around Marakkanam and in other parts of Villupuram and Cuddalore Districts, in connection with the Marakkanam incident on 25 April 2013. Several innocent people died in the incident of stone throwing and related violence. The members of PMK alone were responsible for the said incident;

(ii) The members of Vanniyar Sangam are also the members of PMK. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner or his party has nothing to do with the Vanniyar Sangam or the incident at Marakkanam;

(iii) The police assessed the law and order situation and arrived at a conclusion that in case the petitioner is permitted to conduct public meeting in a busy place like Adyar, definitely, it would create law and order problem in the area. The application was therefore, rightly rejected.

(iv) The police is the proper authority to assess the law and order situation in the area. The police conducted a thorough enquiry in the matter and only t