Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 3501
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K.K. SASIDHARAN, J.
K. Thiagarajan @ Thozhar Thaigu, General Secretary, Thamizgh Thesiya Vidhuthalai Iyakkam
Versus
The Commissioner of Police, Chennai
W.P. No. 26930 of 2013 & M.P. No. 1 of 2013
Decided On : 01-10-2013
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:N.G.R. Prasad, Advocate.
For the Respondent:P.H. Aravindh Pandian, Addl. Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the recognition of hunger strikes as a legitimate form of peaceful protest, protected under the rights to freedom of speech and assembly.
Headnote:
Hunger Strike - Freedom of Assembly - Indian Penal Code, Cauveri Water Disputes Tribunal, Ramlila Maidan Incident - The court discussed the legality of hunger strikes as a form of protest, referencing the Indian National Movement and the actions of Chief Ministers. It highlighted the Supreme Court's observations on hunger strikes and the responsibility of the State to maintain public order. The court emphasized the citizens' right to peaceful protest and the duty of the police to regulate such demonstrations without infringing fundamental rights.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an office bearer of a social organization, sought permission for an indefinite fast at Marina, which was rejected by the Commissioner of Police citing potential law and order issues. The petitioner challenged this decision in a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the denial of permission for the hunger strike was incorrect and quashed the impugned order. It directed the petitioner to cooperate with the police and imposed conditions for organizing the fast at an alternative location.
Issues: The core issues were whether organizing an indefinite fast would be unconstitutional and whether the police could reject the request based on potential law and order problems without providing primary materials for such a conclusion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on precedents, including the Ramlila Maidan Incident, to establish the legality of hunger strikes as a form of peaceful protest. It emphasized the responsibility of the State to respect and encourage the exercise of rights to freedom of speech and assembly, while maintaining public order.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and directions were issued for organizing the hunger strike at an alternative location with specified conditions.
Introductory:
1. Whether organising an indefinite fast would amount to an unconstitutional Act forbidden by law is the core issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition, in view of the stand taken by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai that threat of going on a hunger strike is punishable under law and as such it cannot be permitted.
The facts:
2. The petitioner is stated to be the office bearer of Thamizh Thesiaya Viduthalai Iyakkam, a social organisation, deeply involved in exposing the cause of Tamil language, tradition and culture.
3. According to the petitioner, the organisation has taken a decision to organise indefinite fast at Marina from 1 October 2013 onwards. The petitioner pursuant to the said resolution submitted an application on 5 September 2013 requesting the Commissioner of Police, to grant permission. The Commissioner of Police rejected the request on the ground that indefinite fast is illegal and the proposal would create law and order problem at Marina. The said order dated 19 September 2013 is challenged in this writ petition.
4. It is the contention of the petitioner that hunger strike is a universally accepted method of protest. The President, Chief Minister and the former Chief Minister have undertaken similar indefinite fast at Marina and Valluvar Kottam and therefore there is nothing illegal in the decision taken by the organisation.
5. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mylapore filed a counter affidavit contending that indefinite fast as proposed by the petitioner possess great risk to the life of the persons undertaking such fast and such an act is punishable under Indian Penal Code. It was further contended that Thiruvallur Statute on Marina is not an approved place of agitation. The Deputy Commissioner of Police further submitted that the proposed protest would create a law and order situation and as such permission was rightly rejected.
Submissions:
6. Thiru N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent has not studied the Indian National Movement and as to how India got independence. According to the learned counsel, hunger strike is a recognised mode of protest. The Chief Ministers of the State, both present and past have also adopted this mode to express their protest in a peaceful manner on various occasions. Therefore the police commissioner was not correct in denying permission to the petitioner.
7. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the police have no objection to permit one day fast. The objection is against the indefinite fast and the location selected by the petitioner. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the police is concerned with the law and order problem and as such, the impugned order does not call for interference.
8. The petitioner wanted to express his solidarity with the Srilankan Tamils and to protest against human rights violations in Srilanka. The petitioner has got a charter of demands. He wanted to expel Srilanka from common wealth, besides shifting of Commonwealth Heads of State meeting from colombo to any other place, outside Srilanka. In case the said meeting is conducted at Colombo, it is the demand of the petitioner that our Prime Minister should boycott the meeting. It was only to cite the attention of authorities to these demands, the petitioner has decided to go on indefinite fast at Marina, within the limits of Chennai Corporation.
9. The move to undertake hunger strike is opposed by the police on the ground that the proposed act is illegal and that it would give right to law and order problem in and around the City of Chennai.
10. There are two issues raised in this writ petition, in view of the stand taken by the police, as supportive reasons to reject the request made by the petitioner.
Analysis: "(a) Whether the threat of going on a hunger strike is unconstitutional or opposed to law.
(b) Whether the police can reject the request on the ground of possible
