Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 905
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.
Popular Front of India, Rep., by its State General Secretary – Petitioner
Versus
Director General of Police, Beach Road & Others – Respondents
W.P. Nos. 4049 & 4054 of 2015
Decided On : 17-02-2015
For the Petitioner:S. Sathia Chandran, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 to R4, A.L. Somaya Jee Advocate General assisted by R. Vijayakumar AGP, Inbathurai Spl G.P.
Headnote:
Societies Registration Act, 1869 - City Police Act - Section 41A – Indian Penal Code - Section 302 - Constitution of India 1950 - Article 19(1)(a)&(b) – Offence of murder – First Information Report – Quash of order - Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that petitioner is a Neo-Social Movement that strives for total empowerment of backward oppressed and marginalized section of society and petitioner organization was initially registered in Bangalore under Karnataka Societies Registration Act and subsequently re-registered in Delhi during - It is further submitted that petitioner actively collaborates with various Human Rights Bodies and Legal Aid Networks and provides legal support to poor and ignorant they run a magazine which has large circulations among Muslims - It is further submitted that petitioner has published books on Islamic and General topics which have been widely read in State of - Counsel for petitioner would further state procession meeting proposed to be organized will be conducted in a peaceful manner without disturbance to General Public and petitioner is willing to conduct procession without persons participating procession wearing any uniform resembling members of armed forces or Police personnel and without carrying any arms or weapons and are ready and willing to abide by such conditions that can be imposed - Further it is submitted that is celebrated by petitioner as a founders day and during previous year also same was celebrated peacefully and only in an unfortunate incident took place and First Information Report was registered against cadres of petitioner as well as local public – Held, From above conditions it is clear that organizations were prohibited from permitting their cadres to wear uniforms of Police personnel and defense personnel and not to carry any weapons - organizers namely petitioner agreed to condition imposed - In spite of agreeing to condition records show they flouted conditions and criminal cases are pending - It is stated that a section of public were also affected and injured a claim for judicial enquiry has been made investigation is in progress cases under Section 302 Indian Penal Court have been registered and are pending and therefore respondents are fully justified in taking into consideration past record of petitioner organization manner in which they conducted themselves when permission was accorded subject to conditions - Past conduct is a very relevant factor more particularly in this case as it involves public order - Counsel for petitioner submitted that in case of Dura Shankar supra this Court has also dealt with effect of report received from Intelligence Agencies - It is to be pointed out that in said decision this Court observed that Intelligence Report which was shown to Court are of general nature and were actually received over a long period of time and not with particular reference to a rally or public meeting that petitioners wanted to take out - Intelligence report referred to in impugned proceeding are with specific reference to procession and meeting to be conducted - Therefore those reports cannot be discredited as being of general in nature as it pertains to very procession and meeting for which permission was sought for - Therefore right to freedom of expression and speech may at times have to be subjected to reasonable restrictions to preserve public order and rule of law in light of data which has been referred in impugned order and placed before this Court including First Information Report pending investigation in respect of incident which occurred last year - Therefore this Court is not inclined to sit as an appellate authority over decision of law enforcing agency - There is no error in decision making process petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to put forth their submissions after issuing show cause notice and there can be no complaint in this regard - Writ Petitions are dismissed
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.
1. The petitioner in both the Writ Petitions is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1869. In W.P. No. 4049 of 2015, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.02.2015, by which the third respondent, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Law and Order), Dindigul has rejected the application filed by the petitioner seeking permission for taking out of procession on 17.02.2015, at about 3.00 p.m., from Manikundu to pegampoor, Dindugal, along with public meeting in Vathalukundu Raod, on the same day at about 5.00 P.M.
2. In W.P. No. 4054 of 2015, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, dated 15.02.2015, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for conducting procession at Egmore, Rajarathinam Stadium along with public meeting on 17.02.2015, at about 3.30 P.M.,
3. Mr. S. Sathia Chandran learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a Neo-Social Movement, that strives for total empowerment of the backward, oppressed and marginalised section of the society and the petitioner organisation was initially registered in Bangalore under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act and subsequently, re-registered in Delhi during 2010. It is further submitted that the petitioner actively collaborates with various Human Rights Bodies and Legal Aid Networks and provides legal support to the poor and ignorant, they run a magazine which has large circulations among Muslims. It is further submitted that the petitioner has published books on Islamic and General topics which have been widely read in the State of Tamil Nadu. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further state the procession/meeting proposed to be organised will be conducted in a peaceful manner without disturbance to the General Public and the petitioner is willing to conduct the procession without the persons participating the procession wearing any uniform resembling the members of the armed forces or Police personnel and without carrying any arms or weapons and are ready and willing to abide by such conditions that can be imposed. Further, it is submitted that 17.02.2015 is celebrated by the petitioner as a founder's day and during the previous year also the same was celebrated peacefully and only in Ramanathapuram an unfortunate incident took place and F.I.R., was registered against the cadres of the petitioner as well as the local public. The petitioner filed a public interest litigation before the Madurai Bench of this Court in W.P. (MD) No. 1705 of 2014, for conducting a judicial enquiry and for awarding compensation to the affected public. The Court has directed the Government to appoint an officer in the rank of Inspector of Police to investigate the same and investigation is pending. Further, it is stated that a quash petition was filed in Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 5831 of 2014 to quash Crime No. 67 of 2014 and F.I.R., was allowed by order dated 19.11.2014. Therefore, it is submitted that the incident referred to in the impugned order is purely political. Further, it is submitted that the fundamental rights of the citizens to conduct procession and public meeting cannot be curtailed except for definite reasons and not on mere surmises and the reasons assigned in the impugned order rejecting the permission sought for, is unreasonable. It is further submitted that public discussion with people participation is a basic feature and rational process of democracy which distinguishes itself from all other forms of Government. Further, it is submitted that the reference to the inputs alleged to have received from Intelligence Agencies cannot be a sole basis for denying permission. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in Durai Shankar & Others vs. Secretary to the Government, Home Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, W.P. Nos. 28677 to 28683 of 2014, dated 07.11.2014.
4. The learned Advocate Genera
