Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 1749
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.
Dravidar Kazhagam Rep. by its Vice President Kali. Poongundran, Chennai & Another – Petitioners
Versus
Secretary to Government, Home Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.P. Nos. 10804 & 10585 of 2015 & M.P. No. 1 of 2015
Decided On : 13-04-2015
For the Petitioners:A. Thiagarajan, Senior Counsel for D. Veerasekaran, P. Ayyaswamy, Advocates.
For the Respondents:A.L. Somayaji, Advocate General assisted by S.T.S. Murthy, Government Pleader, M. Digvijay Pandian, Addl. Govt. Pleader.
The Commissioner of Police cannot prohibit assemblies, meetings, and processions in public places arbitrarily or without following due process. The Commissioner's power to prohibit such gatherings is subject to judicial review, and the courts will intervene to protect the fundamental rights of citizens.
Headnote:
The Madras City Police Act, 1888 (the Act) empowers the Commissioner of Police to prohibit assemblies, meetings, and processions in public places. However, this power is subject to judicial review, and the courts have held that the Commissioner cannot prohibit such gatherings arbitrarily or without following due process. In this case, the petitioner, a social reform movement, sought permission to hold a meeting on its premises to commemorate the 125th birth anniversary of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and to conduct other programs, including a voluntary removal of the Thali (a symbol of marriage) and a beef feast. The Commissioner of Police denied permission, citing law and order concerns and the potential for communal violence. The petitioner challenged this order in court, arguing that it violated their fundamental rights to freedom of speech and assembly under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India. The court agreed with the petitioner, holding that the Commissioner's order was arbitrary and unreasonable and that it violated the petitioner's fundamental rights. The court also noted that the impugned order was passed without giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, in violation of the principles of natural justice. Additionally, the court found that the First Information Report (FIR) registered against the petitioner for allegedly promoting communal disharmony was baseless and should be quashed. The court further observed that the practice of wearing the Thali is a matter of personal choice and that the petitioner's program to voluntarily remove the Thali was protected by the right to freedom of expression. The court also held that the beef feast was a legitimate part of the petitioner's cultural and religious practices and that the Commissioner's attempt to prohibit it was an interference with the petitioner's right to food. The court concluded by emphasizing the importance of protecting the fundamental rights of citizens and the need for the State to strike a balance between public order and individual liberty.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a social reform movement, sought permission to hold a meeting on its premises to commemorate the 125th birth anniversary of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and to conduct other programs, including a voluntary removal of the Thali (a symbol of marriage) and a beef feast. The Commissioner of Police denied permission, citing law and order concerns and the potential for communal violence.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Commissioner's order was arbitrary and unreasonable and that it violated the petitioner's fundamental rights. The court also noted that the impugned order was passed without giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, in violation of the principles of natural justice. Additionally, the court found that the First Information Report (FIR) registered against the petitioner for allegedly promoting communal disharmony was baseless and should be quashed. The court further observed that the practice of wearing the Thali is a matter of personal choice and that the petitioner's program to voluntarily remove the Thali was protected by the right to freedom of expression. The court also held that the beef feast was a legitimate part of the petitioner's cultural and religious practices and that the Commissioner's attempt to prohibit it was an interference with the petitioner's right to food.
Issues: Whether the Commissioner of Police's order prohibiting the petitioner's meeting and programs violated the petitioner's fundamental rights to freedom of speech and assembly under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Commissioner's order was arbitrary and unreasonable and that it violated the petitioner's fundamental rights. The court also noted that the impugned order was passed without giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the Commissioner's order. The court also directed the respondents to provide adequate protection to the petitioner to conduct the program in a peaceful manner.
1. This Court after hearing both sides, passed detailed order today. The operative portion of the order is as follows:
“For all these reasons, I am inclined to quash the order and permit the petitioner to conduct the programme relating to 125th Birth Anniversary of Dr. Ambedkar and other programmes connected therewith on 14.04.2015 as stated in their letter dated 29.03.2015. The petitioner is directed to conduct the programmes peacefully as stated in their letter dated 29.03.2015 and also in the affidavit filed before this Court. The respondents are directed to give adequate protection to conduct the programme in a peaceful manner in terms of the judgments of the Apex Court and this Court, referred to above, and also to safeguard the right of the petitioner in W.P.No.10804 of 2015, as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and 1(b) of the Constitution.
Accordingly, the writ petition in W.P.No.10804 of 2015 is allowed in the above terms. The Writ Petition in W.P.No.10585 of 2015 is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”
The detailed order will follow.
Detailed common order in W.P.Nos.10804 and 10585 of 2015:
1. As the issue raised in both these writ petitions are inter-linked, both these petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience the petitioner in W.P.No.10804 of 2015 is referred to as 'the petitioner' in this order, while the petitioner in W.P.No.10585 of 2015 is referred to as the petitioner in W.P.No.10585 of 2015.
2. The petitioner is a Social Reform Movement founded by Thiru.E.V.Ramaswami, popularly known as “Thanthai Periyar”. The petitioner has organised a meeting on 14.04.2015 at their own premises, namely, the Periyar Thidal, on the eve of the 125th Birth Anniversary of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar, the founding father of our Constitution. The Birthday Celebrations scheduled to begin at 9.00 a.m. by garlanding Dr.Ambedkar's Statue and at 10.00 a.m., there is a programme of 'voluntary removal of the Thali'. Thereafter, a Seminar is to be conducted between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m., wherein, various leaders, belonging to different political parties and social movements, are to deliver speeches. At 1.00 p.m., after the Seminar, there is to be a 'Beef Feast'.
3. The petitioner informed about the aforesaid programmes to the Commissioner of Police in their letter dated 29.03.2015 and the petitioner assured the Commissioner of Police that the programmes will be conducted in a peaceful manner and the women, who come voluntarily to remove the Thali, will participate in the function along with their husbands.
4. While so, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vepery Range, Chennai, passed the impugned order dated 12.04.2015 under Section 41(2) of the Madras City Police Act, 1888, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) prohibiting the programmes that will take place on 14.4.2015 at Periyar Thidal, Chennai, on the ground that the same would create law and order and public order problem and also result in religious disharmony. It is also stated in that order that the petitioner failed to seek permission under Section 41 of the Act.
5. Hence, the petitioner sought permission of this Court in the morning at 10.30 a.m. to move lunch motion, as their Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution has been infringed. This Court granted permission.
6. Another writ petition in W.P.No.10585 of 2015 is filed by one P.S. Dhanasekaran, State Vice President of All India Hindu Maha Sabha, seeking for a direction to the Commissioner of Police not to accord permission to the second respondent therein, who is the petitioner in W.P.No.10804 of 2015, to hold the events at Peryar Thidal on 14.04.2015 or on any other date(s).
7. Since the impugned order in W.P.No.10804 of 2015 is now passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vepery Range, Chennai, prohibiting the programmes that are scheduled to be held by the petitioner in W.P.No.10804 of 2015,
