Madras High Court
Order vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Another [(1997) 1 ... on 12 August, 2012
Author: Elipe Dharma Rao
Bench: Elipe Dharma Rao, M.Venugopal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12/08/2012 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 in W.P.No.22146 of 2012 ORDER:
ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.
AND M.VENUGOPAL, J.
(Order of the Court was made by ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.) We heard ,at length, the arguments advanced by Mr.P.Wilson, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.Navaneetha Krishnan, learned Advocate General, assisted by Mr.Shanmugavelayutham, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr.Venkatesh, Government Pleader.
2. Mr.P.Wilson, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the Commissioner of Police, has not given any opportunity before passing the impugned order of rejection and the very rejection of the permission is against the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under the Constitution. He would further argue that the Commissioner of Police has placed reliance only on a statement given by a party functionary in his individual capacity and in his over-enthusiasm that more than one lakh people would attend the conference. He would further argue that only 2500 invitations have been given by name to the invitees and all such invitees are very well known to the petitioner and that not more than 8000 people would attend the conference. In support of this argument, he would draw our attention to para No.7 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and would pray that the same may be recorded and necessary orders may be passed.
3. On the contrary, the learned Advocate General would submit that the Commissioner of Police has considered all the facts and circumstances before passing the impugned order of rejection. He would further submit that according to the press releases issued by the party functionaries of the petitioner, more than one lakh people would throng the conference, in which event the public safety and tranquility will be at danger,besides there being possibility of stampede. He would further submit that the petitioner organisation is not a registered organisation and even the Intelligence Reports would not support conduct of any such conference.
He would place reliance on two judgments of the Division Benches of this Court, (1) VINAYAGA CHATHURTHI MADHYA KUZHU, REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE RAMA GOPALAN vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER [(1997) 1 MLJ (Crl) 142] and (2) STATE, REP.BY ITS INSPECTOR OFPOLICE [2008 (4) CTC 727]. In the first judgment, it has been held that 'the order passed by the Commissioner (under Section 41 of the Madras City Police Act) is not a judicial order nor is it a quasi-judicial order and it is an executive order intended for the purpose of maintaining public order and tranquility.'
4. In the second judgment cited above, while dealing with the 'right to hold public meeting in support of banned organization', a Division Bench of this Court has held that 'organization seeking permission to hold meeting must be registered one and the representation should be made by a responsible person and registered organization and the representation should state object of holding meeting and as to whether it is seeking to support cause of any banned organiztion and on consideration, if permission is refused, it shall be a speaking order.'
5. Citing the above judgments, the learned Advocate General would argue that since the petitioner is not a registered organisation, no such permission can be granted, owing to public peace and tranquility.
6. We have paid our careful consideration to the arguments advanced on either side and perused the entire materials placed on record.
7. In the elaborate impugned order, the Joint Commissioner of Police, nowhere has mentioned the distance between the Royapettah Hospital and the venue/YMCA grounds so as to assess as to whether there is any truth attached to the stand taken by him that if the proposed meeting is permitted, it will cause disturbance or nuisance to the in-patients of the hospital. He has also not taken note of the fact that all arrangements have been made for the smooth running of the conference by the organisers. He has also not properly taken into consideration the fact that from January, 2010 to till date, the YMCA ground has witnessed many functions/seminars etc.
8. In Para No.7 of the affidavit, the petitioner has stated as follows:
"I submit that number of delegates from various foreign countries such s Canada, Nigeria, Turkey, Sweden, Morocco and Srilanka, various leaders from North India have already come down to Chennai to participate in the conference. Necessary arrangements for other delegates for their travels arrival and accommodation have also been made who are expected to arrive today. Necessary clearance from the Central Government has also been accorded, in respect of foreign delegates. Most of them are also arriving today i.e. 11.8.2012. It is submitted that the conference is open only to the invitees and about 2500 invitations have been given and the expected crowd would be not more than 8000 though it was initially expected as 10,000 and hence there need be no apprehension on the side of the respondent that more than1 lakh persons will participate and such allegations are made on the basis of newspaper reports. It is submitted that there ill be no blockage of traffic in the premises at the time of conducting the conference as elaborate arrangements have been made to engage the volunteers for regulating traffic and regulate the entry of the invitees alone. Hence the apprehension of the respondents is unwarranted and baseless. Two entries will be utilized for the participants which is sufficient for the invitees to attend and leave the premises without any hazels."
8. The petitioner is a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu and thus is in a responsible position and the above statement made on oath by the petitioner in his affidavit can be recorded for passing further orders in this matter.
9. It is to be mentioned that the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, dated 9.8.2012, addressed to the petitioner Organisation has ordered that:
"The Ministry has no objection from political angle for the proposed International Conference with foreign participants with the proviso that "Eelam" may be dropped from the title of the Conference and subject to clearance of Ministry of Home Affairs and other competent Authorities."
9. But, by the further communication dated 11.8.2012, the very same Ministry of External Affairs, has ordered as follows:
"This is in supersession of our OM of even number dated 9th August 2012 on the above subject.
2. After taking into account the clarifications provided by the Organisers of the Conference, the Ministry of Eternal Affairs has No Objection to holding of the Conference with the title of "Ealam Tamil Rights Protection Conference". However, the Organisers are advised to ensure that the Conference does not issue any declaration of outcome that calls into question in any manner the sovereignty, territorial integrity and unity of any foreign country with whom India has diplomatic relations."
When, thus, the Ministry of External Affairs and the Ministry of Home Affairs of the Government of India, have given 'No Objection' for the conduct of the Conference, we do not prima facie,see any reason to reject the permission sought for by the petitioner.
10. Further, the present stand of the petitioner, as explained by him in Para No.7 of the affidavit (extracted supra) makes it clear that not more than 8000 people would attend the conference, which is in consonance with the capacity of the YMCA grounds, as noted and observed by the P.W.D.
11. The learned Advocate General has argued that the petitioner has already made arrangements to go on with the conference at an alternate place. But, making arrangements in an alternate place by the petitioner, in case of any legal objections, does not ipso facto debar the petitioner from claiming to go on with the conference at the proposed site of YMCA where they have made elaborate arrangements, since it is within every prudent man's knowledge that in anticipation of a casualty, if any alternate arrangement is made, the same cannot be taken in a wrong sense. Further, the petitioner is not a banned organisation, so as to say that no meeting or conference at the instance of the petitioner can be permitted. The Intelligence Report furnished before us is nothing but a communication emanated from from the Inspector General of Police (Intelligence) (Internal Security) to the Joint Commissioner of Police, Intelligent Section, dated 9.8.2012. The other arguments advanced on either side can be considered at the time of final disposal of the case.
12. Considering all the above facts and circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Police is STAYED. The petitioner is permitted to go on with the Conference on 12.8.2012 as proposed, as undertaken by him in para No.7 of the affidavit (extracted supra), further with the following conditions:
1. The petitioner should ensure that at no point of time during, before and after the Conference, the crowd in the ground is more than 8000 people.
2. The petitioner should ensure that not more than 250 vehicles are allowed into the ground.
3. The petitioner should ensure that the sound emanated from the sound systems, should not, in any manner, affect the in-patients of the Royapettah Government Hospital.
4. It is made clear that the petitioner in all is responsible for the maintenance of law and order in the YMCA grounds and for this purpose, he shall extend all his cooperation to the Police officials, to ensure public safety, security and tranquility.
5. The Commissioner of Police is directed to take all necessary steps to ensure smooth conduct of the Conference so as to avoid any untoward incident in the locality, in the best interest of the public.
Post after four weeks. Notice.
(E.D.R., J.) (M.V., J.) 12.8.2012 Note to office: Issue immediately Rao ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. AND M.VENUGOPAL, J. Order in M.P.Nos.1 and 2/2012 in W.P.No.22146/2012 12.8.2012