SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Mad) 3313

Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
N. KIRUBAKARAN, J.
K.V. Muthuramalingam
Versus
The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram & Others
Crl. O.P (MD) No. 16165 of 2014
Decided on: 18-09-2014

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:S. Ramesh for V. Raghavachari, Advocates.
For the Respondents:P. Kandasamy, Government Advocate.

The court upheld the police's power to impose restrictions under 144 Cr.P.C. to prevent potential law and order issues and communal tension.

Headnote:

Gurupooja - Permission for Celebration - 144 Cr.P.C. - Summary

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought permission to celebrate the second death anniversary of his father, but the police imposed restrictions citing potential law and order issues.

Finding of the Court:

The court upheld the police's decision, stating that the restrictions were imposed to prevent communal tension and maintain public peace.

Issues: Permission for celebration, potential law and order problem, communal tension

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the police's decision to restrict the celebration was justified to prevent potential law and order issues and communal tension.

Final Decision: The relief sought by the petitioner was denied, and the petition was kept pending for further response from the government.

Judgment

1. "Enough is enough". What has been suffered by the people of Tamil Nadu is too much in the name of 'gurupoojas'. Tamil Nadu cannot afford to have any more "gurupooja". This case has all the ingredients of "gurupooja" or potential of 'gurupooja'. If more and more celebrations are in the offing, it will definitely affect peace and tranquility of the State. Hence, these attempts have to be nipped in the bud itself with iron hand.

2. The petitioner, who is the eldest son of the deceased Khadar Batcha @ Vellaisamy, has come up with this petition, challenging the order passed by the third respondent, whereby the third respondent imposed certain conditions for the observance of second death anniversary of his father on 31.08.2014 and seeking a consequential direction to the respondents to grant permission and afford protection for observance of the second death anniversary function of deceased Khadar Batcha @ Vellaisamy in the Manimandapam at Melaramanathi Village on 31.08.2014 by the family members, friends and relatives, irrespective of their caste, creed, religion and political party which they belong to.

3. According to the petitioner, his father Khadar Batcha @ Vellaisamy, was a member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly from 1971 to 1976 and 1988 to 1989. He contributed for the development of the locality and helped people irrespective of their caste, creed and religion. He was a well known leader in that area and he fought for common cause and he was a follower of Late.Muthuramalinga Thevar.

4. The petitioner's father was murdered on 31.08.2012 in his residence and the funeral was attended by more than 5000 people. The first anniversary was conducted after obtaining necessary permission from the Police authorities in the year 2013 and about 3000 people participated and remembered the departed soul for his social services, and nearly about 1000 people were fed.

5. The petitioner and his family members want to conduct the second anniversary, this year in a large scale at the Manimandapam constructed at Melaramanathi village in the memory of deceased Khadar Batcha @ Vellaisamy. On 13.08.2014 the petitioner presented an application to the second respondent seeking permission to celebrate the anniversary on 31.08.2014. However, only on 26.08.2014, the impugned order was served upon the petitioner, granting permission with a restriction that no other outsider of the village should attend. The said order is being challenged before this Court.

6. Mr.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner's father was a social worker and he was a revered leader;

Therefore, there should not be any problem in permitting the outsiders to participate in the celebration;

The third respondent is not justified in restricting the celebration only to close relatives and the natives of the village alone. Moreover, he would find fault with the reason given by the third respondent that the petitioner's father belonged to Thevar Community and there would be a problem during the celebration by the Adi-Dravidar people, who are residing in that area;

By making such statement, a communal colour as well as a political colour are sought to be given by the respondent Police; Refusal of the permission by the third respondent is unknown to law and that too, at the last minute; Elaborate arrangements had been made to conduct the anniversary. Therefore, he sought to quash the order.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in P.Nedumaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and 3 others, reported in 1999 (1) L.W. (Crl.) 73, to contend that the power to impose restrictions is not the power which is available to exercise in an arbitrary manner or for the purpose of promoting the interest of those in power, or for suppressing the dissent.

8. On the other hand, Mr.Kandasamy, learned Government Advocate would submit that there would be a law and order problem and if more people gather during t






























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top