Cultural programmes related to traditional festivals should be permitted unless there is a clear and imminent threat to public order.

ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner calling for the records of the respondent dated 01.03.2025 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondent to grant permission and police protection to conduct cultural programme (Adal Padal Nigalchi) in the event of Sonankuppam village, Arulmigu Venkatesaperumal Temple Festival at Cuddalore Taluk, Cuddalore district on 09.03.2025 between 06.00 pm to 11.00 pm.

2. The petitioner averred that he along with the villagers belong to Sonankuppam village and in their village, there is a temple called Arulmigu Venkatesaperumal Temple. It is a rich heritage and ancient temple. During the temple festival, a cultural programme like Aadal padal programme is being conducted in a peaceful manner without any law and order problem. Likewise, in this year also, Arulmigu Venkatesaperumal Temple Festival is scheduled and there is a proposal to conduct Aadal padal programme on 09.03.2025 between 06.00 pm to 11.00 pm. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent, seeking permission to conduct Aadal padal programme on 09.03.2025. The respondent, without considering the above circumstances, mechanically rejected permission to conduct Aadal padal programme for the reason that if they conduct Aadal padal programme, there will be a law and order problem. Hence, the present Criminal Original petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that this Court repeatedly directs the police officials to grant permission to conduct Aadal padal programme and other related programmes with certain conditions. Therefore, he prayed to quash the impugned order and prayed to grant permission to conduct Aadal padal programme on 09.03.2025.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the respondents submitted that if the petitioner is allowed to conduct Aadal padal programme, there will be a law and order problem. Therefore, this criminal original petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

6. It is relevant to rely the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 10.07.2018 made in W.P. (MD) No. 14491 of 2018, where, this Court has held as follows:

“3........In M. Velmurugan Vs. The Superintendent of Police, on 24.01.2018. In passing orders in W.P. (MD) No. 13440 of 2017 dated 20.07.2017, this Court had observed as follows:-

“3.We may at the very outset note that the celebrations pertain to Arulmighu Sankaranarayana Swamy Temple, Sankarankovil. It is a very ancient and renowed Temple. It is under the control of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. It is beyond dispute that celebrations in such Temples are customary in nature. It is not as if the writ petitioner is seeking to introduce some new practice. What is being traditionally held and conducted has to be necessarily followed. Therefore, we have no hesitation in allowing the writ petition as prayed for”

It is also relevant to note the notification dated 10.08.2017 in S.O.2555(E) by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, wherein, it has been stated as follows:

“3. In the principal rules, in rule 5, for sub-rule (3), the following shall be substituted namely:-

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule(2), the State Government may subject to such terms and conditions as are necessary to reduce noise pollution, permit use of loud speakers or public address systems and the like during night hours (between 10.00 p.m. to 12.00 midnight) on or during any cultural, religious or festive occasion of a limited duration not exceeding fifteen days in all during a calendar year and the concerned State Government or District Authority in respect of its jurisdiction as authorised by the concerned State Government shall generally specify in advance, the number and particulars of the days on which such exemption should be operative.”

Consideri