Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J
S. Yuvaraj – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Police, E.V.K. Sampath Salai – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's representation and claims (Para 4 , 5 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. historical context of the dispute (Para 6) |
| 3. resolution to maintain harmony (Para 10) |
| 4. concerns over public peace (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. balance between rights and public order (Para 17 , 18) |
| 6. writ petition dismissed (Para 19 , 20) |
ORDER :
2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner submitted a representation, on 29.01.2025 and the same was duly received by the respondents. So far, no order has been passed to permit the petitioner and its members to take out procession to reach their temple on 18.02.2025 at 04.00 pm.
6. A perusal of records revealed that the ownership of the said Madurai Thiruparankundram mountain has been decided by the Court till the Privy Council. Originally, a suit was filed in O.S.No.4 of 1920, on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Court, Madura by the Madurai Thirupparankundram etc., devasthanam through receiver, claiming the whole hill, with the exception of certain cultivated and assessed lands and site of the mosque, as temple property
Freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) is subject to restrictions for maintaining public peace and communal harmony.
The right to freedom of speech is fundamental but subject to reasonable restrictions to ensure public order, especially in contexts of communal tension.
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
