Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 16858
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr.Justice N.SATHISH KUMAR
Nagaraj – Appellant
Versus
The State Rep. by its The Di – Respondent
The court highlighted the need for balancing individual rights against community safety in the context of historical violence and public order.
Headnote:
Festival - Permission and Protection - Writ Petition - N/A - The court examined the right to conduct a customary festival in light of historical communal violence and prior judicial pronouncements, emphasizing the necessity of maintaining public order over individual rights in this context.
Fact of the Case:
A writ petition was filed to seek permission and police protection for a temple festival in a village with a history of communal violence, where officials denied permission citing a prior court ruling limiting land use due to a violent incident in 1992.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that granting permission could exacerbate communal tensions and prioritize community stability over the petitioner's claim, indicating serious past violence warranted restrictions.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to conduct a customary festival in a disputed area following historical violence and existing restrictions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that individual rights to worship must be balanced against the rights of the broader community, especially in contexts of past violence and potential unrest.
Final Decision: Writ petition dismissed without costs.
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the first and second respondents to inspect the petitioner's village to grant permission and police protection for the events in connection with the Madasamy Temple festival slated to be held from 13.08.2024 to 16.08.2024 in Kurunjakulam Village.
2.The case of the writ petitioner is that there are 250 families of Scheduled Caste people living in the petitioner's village. The celebration of the festival of Madasamy temple every year in the month of Aadi is the customary practice of petitioner's village. This year, it was scheduled to be held from 13.08.2024 to 16.08.2024. When the petitioner filed a petition seeking permission and protection to conduct the said festival, the third respondent refused to grant such permission without any reasons. Whereas, the third respondent had given permission for the festival conducted by the rival group for a period of seven days. Thereafter, the petitioner made representations before the first and second respondents seeking permission to conduct the festival. However, the same was not considered till today. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the above said relief.
3.It is the contention of the petitioner that in the year 1992, at the time of celebrating the festival, four innocent people were murdered and following the said occurrence, the District Administration had been imposing lot of restrictions on the people of the petitioner's village during the time of festivals. Further, the common land was opposed to be used by the petitioner's village. In a writ petition filed by the rival group in W.P.(MD)No.29126 of 2022 seeking to put up a construction in the said common land, this Court had observed that no political or caste centric meetings or events could be conducted in the said place and the same shall be used to conduct events involving children after getting prior permission from the officials concerned. However, mere citing the above writ petition and without any valid reasons, the respondents are not permitting the petitioner's village to conduct the village festival.
4.The third respondent had filed a status report stating that the permission for customary festival was never rejected by the police. The petitioner had asked permission to conduct cultural events and devotional villu pattu in the disputed land itself and hence, the permission sought by the petitioner was rejected by citing the earlier writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.29126 of 2022.
5.He further submitted that two community people of the petitioner's village are celebrating the festival on the same day and the other community people also has the necessity to pass through the streets of the petitioner's community area for their rituals and hence, it is essential to maintain peace and order and the people of the two groups should be avoided in meeting each other during their customary practices. Further, the dispute is among the two different communities in using the disputed land and the same has been given a communal and political colour to create a breach in law and order. To resolve the situation, multiple talks were conducted with the villagers of both the communities for arriving at a consensus among the two communities for conducting the festival peacefully, but it was not successful.
6.The Tahsildar, Sankarankovil has also filed a report stating that in the year 1992, with regard to the conduct of festival, four innocents were murdered. Therefore, the land, which was in dispute, was declared as government land and was directed to be used only for the purpose of conducting children programmes. Further, during the last year, the petitioner was given with permission to celebrate only the customary practice of worshipping deity and the same was conducted in a peaceful manner.
7.The learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that the land in dispute belongs to the Government and the petitioner has no other land to conduct the festi
