Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 3324
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.N. PRAKASH, J.
B. Senthil Kumar State Secretary Hindu Makkal Katchi (Tamilagam) - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Police Office of Commissioner of Police Vepery - Respondent
W.P. No. 23000 of 2018
Decided On : 23-10-2018
P. Suresh, Adv., C. Raghavan, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for discretion with the authorities of the State, the limited scope for imposing reasonable restrictions in relation to the right under Article 19(1)(b), and the regulation of the right to practice and promote religion peacefully.
Headnote:
Hindu Makkal Katchi - Mobile Propaganda - T.N. City Police Act - Section 41(4), Articles 25 to 28 of the Constitution - The court discussed the power of the police in regulating processions and meetings, the right to practice and promote religion peacefully, and the imposition of reasonable restrictions under Article 19(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution. The court emphasized the need for discretion with the authorities of the State and the limited scope for imposing reasonable restrictions in relation to the right under Article 19(1)(b).
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, claiming to be the State Secretary of Hindu Makkal Katchi, filed a writ petition challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, which rejected the petitioner's request to conduct a spiritual-political mobile propaganda Yathra in Chennai.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's request for mobile van propaganda involved moving in the city streets and stopping at places to give a small talk, which would require police protection and mapping of the route. The court emphasized that there is no fundamental right to opt for a particular route and time without regard to other factors.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's right to conduct mobile van propaganda, the power of the police in regulating processions and meetings, and the imposition of reasonable restrictions under the T.N. City Police Act and the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for discretion with the authorities of the State, the limited scope for imposing reasonable restrictions in relation to the right under Article 19(1)(b), and the regulation of the right to practice and promote religion peacefully.
Final Decision: The court set aside the respondent's order and directed the respondent to give permission to the petitioner for holding a van propaganda in the Chennai city on a specified date and time, with the route to be chartered by the respondent and necessary police protection to be afforded.
P.N. PRAKASH, J.
1. The petitioner, claiming to be the State Secretary of Hindu Makkal Katchi (Tamilagam), has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 28.08.2018 passed by the respondent-Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai and for a direction to the respondent to permit the petitioner's organisation to conduct spiritual-political mobile propaganda Yathra for any four days in Chennai, for spreading spiritual and human values.
2. The petitioner gave an application dated 23.08.2018 seeking permission to conduct mobile van propoganda regarding spiritual and political policies as desired by his leader for the period from 01.09.2018 to 02.01.2019.
3. The petitioner was informed by the respondent that only during election time, permissions are granted for van propaganda with vehicles fitted with loudspeakers; in view of the noise pollution and in order to avoid accidents, nobody is given permission to conduct mobile van propaganda fitted with loudspeakers; if the petitioner is given any such permission, then, it will become a wrong precedent for others to claim a similar permission; further, in order to maintain law and order and public interest as well as to protect religious harmony, the petitioner's request to conduct mobile van propaganda on political religious policies from 01.09.2018 to 02.01.2019 in Chennai cannot be acceded to. Therefore, a notice dated 24.08.2018 was issued to the petitioner to appear before the respondent on 27.08.2018 either in person or through a counsel and to offer their explanation, failing which, it was informed that appropriate orders will be passed on the basis of records. This notice was purported to be issued under Section 41(4) of the T.N. City Police Act.
4. The petitioner, after receiving the notice, submitted a reply dated 27.08.2018, stating that their mobile van propaganda in the city was only for a period of 4 days and they will use a mike which has rather low volume and they will conduct the propaganda in a peaceful manner.
5. However, the respondent opined that the volume of traffic in Chennai has increased and that many roads have become one way traffic and if propaganda for such spiritual-political issues are allowed through van, then, the traffic will become a chaos and the common people will be put to trouble even for doing their daily routine. It was also stated that certain anti-social elements may assemble during the van propaganda and may indulge in anti-social activities including causing damage to public/private properties and may cause public disorder. The respondent also referred to the observation made by the Supreme Court regarding the power of the police in regulating processions and meetings and reference was made to the order dated 10.04.2003 in Civil Appeal No.7926 of 2001 (K.K.Road Merchants, Tamil Nadu Vs. District Collector, Tamil Nadu) as under:
"......... Police already have powers under the existing enactments to regulate processions and meetings.....the antecedents of the organizers, and whether there would be any prejudice in maintenance of Law and Order, public tranquillity, peace and security of the State. It was therefore considered that there should be an element of discretion with the authorities of the State. In view of the above, no further orders are necessary. The Civil Appeal stands disposed off accordingly"
So saying, the respondent, by order dated 28.08.2018 in reference no. 1210/Tha.P.2/2018-1, rejected the request of the petitioner for grant of permission. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
6. The contention of the petitioner was that his organization wanted to conduct Yatra for inculcating culture, tradition and human values so as to transform the present generation in a righteous path and bring peace and harmony in the society; they were of the opinion that many children are misguided and are indulging in nefarious activities. It was also claimed that every citizen of India has a right to practi
