IMPORTANT POINT
Courts should not normally interfere with matters relating to law and order which is primarily the domain of concerned administrative authority.

Headnote:(i) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -Section 144-Order passed by Additional District Magistrate whereby respondent was restrained from entering Dakshina Kannada District and from participating in any function in District for 15 days-ADM felt that speech by respondent would result in stoking communal feelings vitiating harmonious social and communal atmosphere-High Court set aside the order in a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C.-Appeal-Courts should not normally interfere with matters relating to law and order which is primarily domain of concerned administrative authority-Decision as to the need and necessity to take prohibitory actions must be left to discretion of authorities and interposition of Courts was not possible unless a concrete case of abuse or exercise of power for extraneous consideration was made out-Court cannot substitute its views for that of competent authority-Impugned order could not be sustained.
       Held : The valuable and cherished right of freedom of expression and speech may at times have to be subjected to reasonable subordination of social interests, needs and necessities to preserve the very chore of democratic life - preservation of public order and rule of law. At some such grave situation at least the decision as to the need and necessity to take prohibitory actions must be left to the discretion of those entrusted with the duty of maintaining law and order, and interposition of Courts - unless a concrete case of abuse or exercise of such sweeping powers for extraneous considerations by the authority concerned or that such authority was shown to act at the behest of those in power, and interference as a matter by course and as though adjudicating an appeal, will defeat the very purpose of legislation and legislative intent. (Para 8)
       The High Court in our view should not have glossed over these basic requirements, by saying that the people of the locality where the meeting was to be organised were sensible and not fickle minded to be swayed by the presence of any person in their amidst or by his speeches. Such presumptive and wishful approaches at times may do greater damage than any real benefit to individual rights as also the need to protect and preserve law and order. The Court was not acting as an appellate authority over the decision of the official concerned. Unless the order passed is patently illegal and without jurisdiction or with ulterior motives and on extraneous considerations of political victimisation by those in power, normally interference should be the exception and not the rule. The Court cannot in such matters substitute its view for that of the competent authority. (Para 9)
       (ii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -Sections 144 and 20-Prohibitory order passed by Additional District Magistrate-High Court set aside order holding that ADM did not have jurisdiction to issue the order-Notification by State Govt. that Special Deputy Commissioner of a Distt. and Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner of a District who were appointed as Executive Magistrates to the Additional Distt. Magistrate in such Distt.-It was for respondent who was questioning before High Court authority of SDM to place material to substantiate his claim-ADM had jurisdiction to issue the order. (Paras 15 and 16)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.

2. Though by passage of time, the basic issues seem to have become infructuous, in view of the importance and recurring nature of the legal issues involved, with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, they are taken up. For deciding the issues involved in the appeal the background facts, which are practically undisputed, run as follows:

3. The respondent by an order of Additional District Magistrate (in short the ADM ), Dakshina Kannada was restrained from entering the said district and from participating in any function in the district for a period of 15 days i.e. from 10.2.2003 to 25.2.2003. The order was dated 7.2.2003. A function was organised at Mangalore on 13.2.2003 where several religious leaders were shown as the likely participants. On 7.2.2003, a permission for holding the meeting was obtained by the organisers from the District Magistrate, Mangalore. Permission was also granted by the police authorities and the Corporation. The ADM at this stage passed an order dated 7.2.2003 in MAG (2) CR 352/2002-03, Dand restrained the respondent as aforesaid on the ground that the district had become communally sensitive and there were several communal clashes starting from 1988 resulting in several deaths and damage to public and private properties. It was indicated in the detailed order passed which was under challenge before the High Court of Karnataka that the respondent during his visit to another place on 18.12.2002, had delivered an inflammatory speech which incited communal feelings and the communal harmony was greatly affected. The ADM felt that a similar speech by the respondent would result in stoking communal feelings vitiating harmonious social and communal atmosphere. The respondent challenged the order in a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code ) before the High Court taking the stand that the ADM had no jurisdiction, because he was not an Executive Magistrate or had not been conferred with powers of an Executive Magistrate. The respondent also took the stand that his speeches had nothing to do with any communal dis-harmony. They were made with reference to political issues which have been the subject matter of debate for several years. Only for political reasons a case was registered against him. The petition was resisted on several grounds; firstly it was pointed out that an alternate remedy was inbuilt under Section 144 of the Code and without exhausting that statutory remedy, the present respondent should not have rushed to the High Court for exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code. The stand of the present respondent that the time available was very short and result of the so-called alternate remedy would not have yielded any fruitful results is incorrect. Secondly, reference was made to several instances where on account of the action of the respondent, and his speeches and acts of organisers of the function there were communal clashes and the District administration had to intervene to avoid disturbances of social tranquility and communal harmony.

4. The High Court by the impugned judgment held that the ADM did not have jurisdiction to issue the order in purported exercise of power under Section 144 of the Code. It further held that serene communal atmosphere of the State was an example of communal harmony and hope was expressed that the sensible and knowledgeable people of the State would not get swayed by any speeches touching communal issues. Accordingly, the order passed by the ADM was quashed.

5. In support of the appeal, Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde submitted that the High Court should not have interfered with an order which was aimed at maintaining law and order in the area and preventing untoward incidents. The prior conduct of the respondent in giving speeches at several places and his other activities which inflamed a violent reaction and resulted in communal clashes and hatred had been properly taken

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 404

IMPORTANT POINTCourts should not normally interfere with matters relating to law and order which is primarily the domain of concerned administrative authority.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINT
Courts should not normally interfere with matters relating to law and order which is primarily the domain of concerned administrative authority.