The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of freedom of speech and expression, the need for reasonable restrictions, and the duty of the State to protect such freedoms, as well as the role of law enforcement authorities in regulating assemblies, meetings, and processions in public places.

1. The District Secretary of Namakkal Maavata Maanavar Paasarai, Naam Tamilar Katchi has filed this writ petition, seeking to quash the order of refusal of the 3rd respondent dated 08.12.2013 with a consequential direction to the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner to conduct procession and public meeting on 15.12.2013.

2. According to the petitioner, he had applied for permission from the third respondent to conduct a procession and public meeting to pay tribute during the memorial ceremony on the 18th death anniversary of Abdul Rashub, the first man to self immolate himself for the Srilankan Issue order and Mr.Seeman, the founder of Naam Tamilar Katchi had consented to participate in the public meeting and give speech also.

2a. It is submitted by the petitioner that the District Secretary of petitioner Katchi had made written representation to the third respondent as early as on 29.10.2013, who, for the reasons best known to him, had procrastinated in giving permission and later on, refused to grant permission on the ground that there exists promulgation order under Section 30(2) of Police Act, 1861. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the above relief.

3. The impugned order is challenged on the following grounds:

i. that the provision under Section 30(2) of Police Act, 1861 is only a regulatory power and not a blanket power to stifle the democratic dissent of the citizens and the democracy is meant for propagation of ideals, opinions and views of the speakers to the citizens;

ii. that Section 30(2) of the Act stipulates prescription of rules to conduct processions and the said Section cannot used to prevent the political parties from conducting such meetings/processions;

iii. that the refusal of the 3rd respondent mainly stating that there will occur traffic congestion, is illegal, as there will not be any vehicular traffic on the said date, being Sunday evening and thus refusal is unconstitutional and violative of fundamental rights of freedom speech and expression.

4. A counter has been filed by the 2nd respondent, wherein it has been stated that the writ petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. On receipt of petition from the petitioner for permission to conduct procession and public meeting in remembrance of Abdul Rashub on his 18th death anniversary, the respondent had refused for such procession vide his letter dated 08.12.2013, after analyzing various reasons, which read as under:

i) As per the order under 30 (ii) Police Act, 1861, permission will not be granted for conducting procession or public meeting within the jurisdiction of Rasipuram Police Station from Old Bus Stand to new Bus Stand;

ii) The way from the old bus stand to new bus stand is one way, congestion area and also there is a Government Hospital. Hence, If the permission is granted, it will affect the public;

iii) There is no sufficient place to conduct the public meeting in the Rasipuram Town area participating over and above 1000 members;

iv) If the permission is granted, it will create law and order problem, since a lot of people from various places and various communities gather in one place and several vehicles such as vans, cars, two wheelers will flow into the town and in such event the entire general public will be affected. To maintain law and order and taking note of the interest of the public, permission was refused.

4a. It is stated in the counter that though the petitioner on earlier occasion had conducted procession in Rasipuram, keeping in view the festival time at present, viz., Christmas and New Year, if the permission is granted, it will create law and order problem on account of mass gathering of different community people and hence, it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.

5. Mr.R.Shanmuga Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.N.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in his submission has strenuously contended that the procession and public