Back
Slams for Banners Without Court Permission
The on issued a sharp oral rebuke to after it emerged that the organisation had allegedly put up banners advertising a proposed torchlight march and stage programme in Mysuru, even though no permission had been granted by the court. The single-judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj, hearing a seeking police clearance for the August 14 Independence Day eve event, warned the petitioners against taking the court for granted.
“Don't take courts for granted…this is not the way…we are trying to get you an order…you put up banners before the court grants permission?” the court observed, reflecting its displeasure with what it perceived as a deliberate attempt to pre-empt judicial proceedings.
The petition, filed by through its convenor Vasanth Kumar, challenged an endorsement issued by the in Mysuru refusing permission. The organisation sought to conduct an “Akhanda Bharatha Sankalpa Diwas” event involving a torchlight march and a stage programme on the evening of . Arguing that Independence was attained at midnight and that it has become a tradition to celebrate it on the eve, the petitioners maintained that the event was open to the public and not directed against any particular religious community.
However, appearing for the State vehemently opposed the petition. He raised serious concerns about the of the organisers, producing a to demonstrate that the convenor and other named members—Vasanth Kumar, Girish, and Suresh—had been investigated for alleged . According to the State, these individuals would go to railway stations, identify persons, and attack them on the pretext of them being Bangladeshis.
The AGA further argued that the proposed route of the torchlight march passed through the “most sensitive area” of Mysuru, which could incite in the run-up to Independence Day. He suggested an alternative route in the same vicinity, but the petitioners rejected it. “What I am trying to say is I have so much material to show how would be invoked. In the wake of Independence Day, they want to go in an area that is the most sensitive…”, the State submitted.
Responding, for the petitioners contended that not a single untoward incident had occurred in connection with the proposed march in the past. He also suggested that the banners might have been put up by local supporters rather than functionaries of the organisation, and sought to downplay the significance of the premature publicity.
During the morning session, the court had initially shown inclination to grant permission, observing that for Independence Day celebrations, the State could not automatically invoke a communal angle. “For Independence Day, we can't accept it [state's arguments on sensitive area] ….if it was any particular religious festival, you[state] can take up the communal angle,” the court remarked orally. The earlier hearing on Wednesday had seen the court indicating that it would impose on the organisers, warning that they would be held responsible for any incident arising from the event.
The case has been listed for , and the court is expected to pass a formal order on whether to allow the march and on what conditions.
Legal Implications: Balancing Freedom of Assembly and
The proceedings highlight the delicate constitutional balance between the right to peaceful assembly under and the State's duty to maintain . The High Court's oral observations demonstrate a judicial willingness to scrutinise police refusals when they are based on broad allegations of sensitivity, especially in the context of national celebrations like Independence Day. The court's inclination to grant permission for a secular event while demanding strict accountability from organisers reflects a nuanced approach.
However, the premature display of banners underscores a critical compliance issue: organisers are expected to await a before acting on a permission . The court's cautionary remarks serve as a reminder that the judiciary's does not authorise unilateral action. Legal practitioners should note that such conduct could invite or jeopardise the sought.
Impact on Legal Practice and the Justice System
For lawyers handling similar petitions for public gatherings, this case reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural discipline. The court's scrutiny of of organisers aligns with the principle that constitutional rights are not absolute and may be curtailed where there is a credible threat to . The State's reliance on chargesheets and specific allegations of vigilantism introduces a factual dimension that courts will weigh carefully.
The decision, whether eventually granting or denying permission, will likely influence future applications for marches in sensitive areas. It also emphasises the role of the High Court as a gatekeeper for , particularly when executive authorities refuse permission on grounds of . The warning—making organisers responsible for any untoward incident—may become a standard condition in such orders, deterring frivolous or risky events.
As the legal community awaits the final order, one takeaway is clear: the will not tolerate premature publicity that undermines its authority. The phrase “don't take courts for granted” resonates far beyond this single petition, serving as a judicial imperative for all litigants.
