Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
V. SIVAGNANAM, J.
Shanthakumar - Appellant
Versus
The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar & Others - Respondent
W.P(MD). No. 16398 of 2022 & W.M.P(MD). No. 11847 of 2022
Decided On : 28-07-2022
Freedom of Assembly - Padhayathra - Article 19(1)(a)(b) of the Constitution of India - C.L.Pasupathy Vs. Engineer in Chief (WRO) and Chief Engineer (General) PWD, Chennai and another ((2009) 2 MLJ 491), D.Sandilyan Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai District and another ( 2012 (0) Supreme (MAD) 2395), Himat Lal K.Shah Vs. Commissioner of Police (AIR 1973 SC 87 ), T.M.Thaniyarasu Vs. Commissioner of Police and others (2014 (1) LW 465), The Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu Vs. Era.Selvam and another ( 2013 (3) MLJ 513) - The court set aside the rejection order and directed the second respondent to consider the fresh representation of the petitioner based on the circular of the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu Chennai, and grant permission for the Padhayathra.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a member of the Bharathiya Janatha Party, sought permission to conduct a Padhayathra to create awareness about the establishment of a textile park in Virudhunagar District. The permission was rejected by the second respondent, leading to the filing of a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the permission for the Padhayathra violated the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to assemble peacefully under Article 19(1)(a)(b) of the Constitution of India. The court emphasized the importance of peaceful assembly and the right to protest peacefully as recognized fundamental rights.
Issues: The main issue was whether the rejection of permission for the Padhayathra violated the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Article 19(1)(a)(b) of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to peaceful assembly and protest is a fundamental right, subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of law and order and the general public. The court emphasized the duty of the State to respect and encourage peaceful protests and dissent, while also balancing these rights with other contrasting rights.
Final Decision: The court set aside the rejection order and directed the second respondent to consider the fresh representation of the petitioner based on the circular of the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu Chennai, and grant permission for the Padhayathra. The petitioner was also directed to conduct the Padhayathra-awareness walk without causing any inconvenience to the general public.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the Impugned Original Order passed by the second respondent vide his Proceedings in Namuna No. 273 / Kaa. Thu. Ka / Siva / 2022, dated 23.07.2022 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to give permission and protection to conduct Padhayathra (Awareness Walk) on behalf of Bharathiya Janatha Party on 26.07.2022 at about 7.00 A.M / Thursday headed by State General Secretary and West District President of Bharathiya Janatha Party along with 1000 Cadres from Thiruthangal to District Collectorate, Virudhunagar via Amathur.)
1. This writ petition has been filed in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus, seeking to quash the proceedings in Namuna No. 273 / Kaa. Thu. Ka / Siva / 2022, dated 23.07.2022, passed by the second respondent and consequently direct the respondents to give permission and protection to conduct Padhayathra (Awareness Walk) on behalf of Bharathiya Janatha Party on 26.07.2022 at about 7.00 A.M / Thursday headed by State General Secretary and West District President of Bharathiya Janatha Party along with 1000 Cadres from Thiruthangal to District Collectorate, Virudhunagar via Amathur.
2. This matter is heard along with the petition in W.P(MD)No.16391 of 2022. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner therein/R.Muthubalaji seeks a direction to the second respondent therein, to reject the demand of the Bharathiya Janatha Party cadres to conduct Padhayathra with 1000 party members for giving a petition to the District Collector, Virudhunagar. However, the orders for these petitions are passed separately.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner herein submitted that the petitioner is the Virudhunagar West District Advocate Wing President of Bharathiya Janatha Party (BJP). The Central Government allotted fund for the establishment of textile park in Virudhunagar District but, the State Government of Tamil Nadu, for several years had not implemented the project of establishing the textile park by utilizing the fund. In such circumstances, the petitioner's party has resolved to submit a petition to the District Collector, Virudhunagar on 21.07.2022, requesting for allotment of lands to form textile park at Virudhunagar District, with ten party members alone and also to promote awareness among the public about the advantages of forming a textile park in that locality, they proposed to conduct a Padhayathra - awareness walk, which is decided to be led by the West District President of Virudhunagar District BJP and State General Secretary BJP along with 1000 cadres of BJP. The Padhayathra will commence from 07.00 am from Thiruthangal to Virudhunagar District Collectorate Office via Amathur (total distance 27 Kilometers). Hence, the petitioner sent a representation, dated 19.07.2022 to the first respondent, seeking permission to conduct Padhayathra. But, the same was rejected on 20.07.2022, by the order of the second respondent in Namuna No.267/Kaa.Thu.Ka/Siva/2022. Aggrieved by the said order, he preferred a writ petition before this Court in W.P(MD)No. 16164 of 2022, seeking to quash the rejection order, dated 20.07.2022. This court set aside the said rejection order dated 20.07.2022 and allowed that writ petition with a direction to the second respondent therein, to consider the fresh representation of the petitioner, based on the circular of the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu Chennai, in R.C.No.007301/Genl.I (1)/2019, dated 09.04.2019 and grant permission. In pursuance of that order, the petitioner also gave a fresh representation to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sivakasi, as in person, on 23.07.2022. But, the same was again rejected by the second respondent in his proceedings Namuna No. 273/Kaa.Thu.Ka/Siva/2022, dated 23.07.2022, which is now under challenge. Further, he submitte
The main legal point established in the judgment is the recognition of the fundamental right to peaceful assembly and protest, subject to reasonable restrictions, and the duty of the State to respect....
Point of law : Right need to be balanced with other contrasting fundamental rights and is subject to reasonable restrictions indicated in Articles 19(2) and (3). Therefore, the mere fact that batch o....
The right to assemble peacefully and protest is a fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), and 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India. The police cannot reject permission for a ....
The right to assemble is constitutionally protected but subject to reasonable restrictions in light of public safety.
The right to assemble peacefully is fundamental and cannot be prohibited without reasonable justification, emphasizing the need for a balance between individual rights and public order.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
