IN THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J.
The Indian National Congress, (Sikkim Pradesh) & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Sikkim represented by the Chief Secretary, Government of Sikkim, Gangtok & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 18 of 2017
Decided On : 29-05-2017
Freedom of Speech - Public Meeting - Sikkim Police Act, 2008, Section 158(1) - Noise Pollution (V), In Re, (2005) 5 SCC 733
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners organized a street corner meeting at Kachanjunga Shopping Complex, Gangtok, with prior permission, but the police disconnected the wire connection to the public announcement system, leading to a petition seeking compensation and action against the police.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the police did not exceed their power and regulated the loudspeakers to minimize public nuisance. The meeting was conducted as per permission, but the loudspeakers caused public inconvenience.
Issues: Violation of fundamental rights, compensation, police action, and security for the petitioner's family.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that regulation of loudspeakers is necessary to contain noise pollution and protect the public from excessive noise. It emphasized the need for clear and specific permissions for public meetings.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
Satish K. Agnihotri, J.
The first petitioner is a national political party and the second petitioner is the Treasurer of the first petitioner. Assailing the alleged action of the eighth respondent by interfering with the public announcement system used by the petitioner-party in the street corner meeting held at Kanchanjunga Shopping Complex, Gangtok, East Sikkim, the petitioners have come up with this petition seeking directions to the official respondents to take action against the eighth respondent and also to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.3.00 lakhs to the petitioners for damages caused. Further, a security is sought to the entire family of the petitioner No. 2.
2. The brief facts, as projected by the petitioners, are the petitioners organized a street corner meeting at Kachanjunga Shopping Complex, Gangtok on 13th November, 2016 for the purpose of creation of awareness of rights and liabilities through public announcement system between 1000 to 1600 hrs. at the Kanchanjunga Shopping Complex, with prior permission dated 11th November, 2016 of the competent authority. It is submitted that the meeting was organized as per schedule, complying with the conditions of the permission granted by the fifth respondent. It is alleged that the eighth respondent, who is also arrayed as seventh respondent in official capacity, came to the venue of the meeting at around 1300 hrs. with some police personnel and started using abusive, unparliamentary and filthy language against the leaders and also disconnected the wire connection to the public announcement system, which was widely published in the electronic and print media on the next day. It is further contended that the action of the eighth respondent was unlawful, violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under the provisions of Articles 14, 19 read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India and also has caused irreparable damages to the prestige and status of the petitioners. It is further stated that the first information report (FIR) was lodged before the fifth respondent vide letter dated 14th November, 2016, which yielded no response. Thereafter, a representation was also made to the third respondent and further representation was made through advocate’s notice dated 24th January, 2017 to all the concerned authorities. Finding no response/action from the authorities, the petitioners were constrained to file the instant writ petition seeking the aforestated reliefs.
3. Mr. Pratap Khati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would contend that the eighth respondent has exceeded his jurisdiction and violated the fundamental rights of the petitioners enshrined under Articles 14, 19 (1) (a) (b) and 21 of the Constitution of India. The said respondent disconnected the wire connecting the public announcement system, knowing fully well that the meeting was conducted with due permission from the competent authority. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.3.00 lakhs and also a direction to the authorities to take stringent action against him. Referring to a decision of the Supreme Court in Anita Thakur & Ors. vs. Govt. of J & K & Ors., AIR 2016 SC 3803, wherein Rs.3.00 lakhs in total as compensation was awarded to the petitioners therein, the learned counsel would submit that the petitioners are also entitled to the compensation as prayed for.
4. Per contra, Mr. J.B. Pradhan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents would contend that on receipt of representation dated 15th November, 2016, addressed to the second respondent, the fourth respondent was directed to submit a report. The fourth respondent in turn directed the Additional District Collector, East to make an enquiry and submit a report. On enquiry, it was found that the eighth respondent has not exceeded his power and also not violated the condition of the permission granted therefor. That a public complaint was received around 1155 hrs. on 13th November
Anita Thakur & Ors. vs. Govt. of J & K & Ors.
P.A. Jacob v. Supdt. of Police
Free Legal Aid Cell Shri Sugan Chand Aggarwal v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.