Madras High Court
T.M.Thaniyarasu vs The Commissioner Of Police on 9 January, 2014
Author: V.Dhanapalan
Bench: V.Dhanapalan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09.01.2014 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN W.P.No.611 of 2014 T.M.Thaniyarasu ... Petitioner vs. 1. The Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai-8. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Madhavaram Range, Chennai 600 060. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ennore, Chennai. 4. The Inspector of Police (Law & Order), M-5, Ennore Police Station, Chennai 600 057. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 05.01.2014 passed by the 4th respondent and quash the same with a consequential direction directing the respondents to grant permission to hold Public meeting by the petitioner on 10.01.2014 at Kalaignar Arangam, Annai Sivagami Nagar Playground, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai 600 019, as scheduled by using loudspeakers and to provide sufficient police protection for the public meeting and its participants. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Shanmugasundaram Senior Counsel For Mr.M.Dhandapani For Respondents : Mr.A.L.Somayaji Advocate General Asst. by Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, Spl. Govt. Pleader ***** O R D E R
By consent of the learned counsel on either side, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.
2. Heard Mr.R.Shanmugasundaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. Challenging the impugned order dated 05.01.2014 passed by the 4th respondent, whereby, the request of the petitioner seeking permission to hold Public Meeting on 10.01.2014 at Kalaignar Arangam, Annai Sivagami Nagar Playground, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai 600 019, was declined, the petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition seeking to quash the same and for a consequential direction to the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner to hold Public meeting on 10.01.2014 in the said premises, as scheduled, by using loudspeakers and to provide sufficient police protection for the public meeting and its participants.
4. According to the petitioner, he is an active member of the DMK Party, holding the post of Town Secretary of Thiruvottiyur Town of DMK Party. Formerly, he was a Municipal Councilor of Thiruvottiyur Municipality and a member of the District Planning Committee of Thiruvallur District.
5. He would further submit that the DMK Party is gearing up for the forthcoming General Election to the Loksabha and every District Unit of the DMK is generating funds for the party to meet the expenses in contest to the Parliamentary elections. The Thiruvallur District Unit has decided to conduct a public meeting at Thiruvottiyur to motivate the cadre and to hand over the collected funds to the Treasurer of the DMK Party cum former Deputy Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Hon'ble M.K.Stalin in the presence of the partymen and the general public. The public meeting is to be presided over by DMK Party Thiruvallur District Secretary Mr.Madhavaram S.Sudharsanam. The Public meeting will be addressed by leaders of the District, who will give speeches motivating the cadre and the public to extend support for the DMK Party. The function is scheduled to be held on 10.01.2014 at about 6.00 p.m and it was unanimously resolved by the Party Thiruvottiyur Town Committee to hold public meeting at Kalaignar Kalaiarangam, Annai Sivagami Nagar Playground, Thiruvottiyur Town Committee, Chennai-19, where there is a built up concrete stage and public meetings are usually held by all political parties.
6. Earlier, the public meeting was scheduled to be held on 15.11.2013 and therefore, the petitioner made an application to respondents 1 and 2 on 05.11.2013 requesting them to grant permission for conducting public meeting and respondents 1 and 2, in turn, on the very same day, forwarded the petitioner's application without making any adverse comment thereby sanctioning his request. But, unfortunately, the public meeting scheduled to be held on 15.11.2013 could not be held due to announcement of the Bye-Election to Yercaud Assembly Constituency on 4th December 2013 and hence, the DMK Party District unit postponed the date of the meeting to 10.01.2014. After the by-election, the petitioner made a fresh application to the 4th respondent for the postponed meeting on 10.01.2014 and also sought permission to use loud speakers and the Village Development Sangam, Annai Sivagami Nagar, Ennore also issued "No Objection Certificate", for conducting public meeting.
7. Enclosing all the particulars, the petitioner made a renewed representation to the 4th respondent on 25.12.2013 to grant permission for conducting public meeting scheduled to be held on 10.01.2014 and he was informed by the respondents that there would not be any difficulty in according permission for the venue for the meeting on 10.01.2014, since the respondents did not raise any objection earlier for the meeting scheduled on 15.11.2013, which happened to be postponed. Hence, the District Unit of the DMK started making elaborate arrangement for the meeting and gave wide publicity incurring heavy expenditure. The District DMK Party unit meeting was also held on 03.01.2014, where the representatives resolved to make the public meeting on 10.01.2014 a grand success, ensuring participation in large number. But, suddenly, the 4th respondent, without notice to the petitioner and without seeking any explanation from him, rejected the petitioner's representation without assigning any reason and refused to grant permission to hold public meeting on 10.01.2014. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.
8. The 4th respondent, on his behalf and on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, has filed counter stating that the Police authorities of Ennore have obviously earmarked four places as regular venue for conducting public meetings by the political parties of others, considering the vulnerability of the area and other circumstances not disturbing or affecting the normal life of the public residing there. Political parties used to conduct public meetings in the above earmarked places only by getting proper permission from the police authorities all along the period, whereas, the petitioner wanted to conduct the political meeting of the D.M.K. Party at Annai Sivagami Nagar Playground, which is not earmarked for the election meeting of the political parties. According to the 4th respondent, Annai Sivagami Nagar is a vulnerable area for any untoward incident at any time, which may result in severe law and order prosecution. Hence, considering such vulnerability, the police department forewent the said area as not suitable for conducting any election public meeting of political parties.
9. It is further stated by the 4th respondent that he has sent in writing to the petitioner to choose any one of the following earmarked places for conducting the said election party meeting pertaining to the 1st application dated 05.11.2013 and 2nd application dated 25.12.2013.
(i) Wimco Nagar (near market)
(ii) Opposite of Kaltivakkam Municipal Office
(iii) Near Bazaaar at Thasham Kuppam
(iv) Near Murugam Temple at Ernavoor
10. It is also stated in the counter that, if permission is granted to D.M.K. Political party for conducting election public meeting in the playground at Annai Sivagami Nagar, other political parties will take it as a precedent and claim it a matter of right which will invite trouble and there will be possibility of breach of peace in the locality in future and it will be a menace not only to the public but also to the police department. The 4th respondent would further go to state that in view of the prevailing position which can well be assessed by the local police, the petitioner is not accepting and co-operating with the law enforcing authority and intends to invite unwarranted situation in the locality. Moreover, the rejection order for conducting the election public meeting as sought by the petitioner was informed through speed post on 30.12.2013, but was refused by the petitioner purposely with an ulterior motive.
11. Mr.R.Shanmugasundaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the 4th respondent deliberately ignored the need to give utmost importance to freedom of speech and expression and assembling without any arms, which is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and even the restrictions as stated in Article 19(2) shall be reasonable and shall not transgress legal limits or be arbitrary. To substantiate his case, he has relied on the following decisions :
(i) (1999) 1 L.W. (Crl.) 73 (P.Nedumaran vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others) "15. The rights conferred on the citizens by Article 19 of the Constitution are precious rights and are not to be lightly breached or restricted by the State or any functionary of the State. Any regulation of exercise of those rights must be for the purposes specified in Article 19 of the Constitution itself, and that power must be so exercised as to subserve the larger public good. The power to impose restrictions is not the power which is available for exercise in an arbitrary manner or for the purpose of promoting the interest of those in power, or for suppressing dissent. Democracy can be made dynamic and truly alive only when there is free market for ideas and discussion and debate is not only permitted but is encouraged. All expression of opposing view point cannot be regarded as dangerous to the safety or security of the country and all expressions which do not find the approval of those exercising the power of the State cannot be regarded as harmful to the State and to the public order.
16. The power conferred on the Commissioner under Section 41 of the Madras City Police Act is sweeping, that power is meant to be exercised with great care and caution. The Madras City Police Act is a pre-Constitution enactment, and the powers conferred on the authorities at a time when the country was under the colonial regime, and during the period when suppression of dissent was considered to be a legitimate policy of the State, cannot be exercised after the enactment of Constitution in the same manner, as it was exercised earlier. The Intelligence Report placed before the Court shows that the police still have the attitude which does not seem to recognize that the country is a democratic nation, where every citizen has a right to full and equal participation in the process of Government. No citizen can be regarded as an enemy of the State merely because he has voiced a view which is not the one favoured by those in authority.
(ii) (2013) 3 MLJ 513 (Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai and others vs. Era. Selvam and another) "2. The learned Advocate General appearing for the appellants based on the contentions raised in the counter affidavit filed in the writ petitions and grounds raised in the writ appeals argued that pamphlets published by the Organisers of the procession and pubic meeting causes great concern for the Police authorities in maintaining peace and tranquility and public order and the conduct of political party, which is organising the same, when such procession and meetings were conducted earlier, there were traffic hazards and law and order problem arose, and bearing the said issues in mind the request to conduct procession was considered and then a show cause notice was issued to the organiser in relation to the procession. The respondents in these writ appeals who filed writ petitions before the learned single Judge submitted explanation to the show cause notice on 10.4.2013 and without waiting for the orders to be passed by the third appellant herein, the petitioners have rushed to this Court by filing the above writ petitions on 11.4.2013 and prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus to hold procession and conduct public meeting. The learned Advocate General relied on the decisions reported in (2004) 4 SCC 684 (State of Karnataka v. Dr.Praveen Bhai Togadia); (2012) 5 SCC 1 (Ramlila Maidan Incident, In Re); Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2004 (5) CTC 554 (Rama Muthuramalingam V. DSP, Mannargudi) and two other decisions of learned single Judge of this Court and contended that the authorities have to decide the grant of permission to hold procession and for conducting public meeting based on the ground realities and this Court ought not to have entertained the writ petitions and issued directions and the Law Enforcing authorities are the best judges to assess the prevailing situation in the area, where the permission is sought to conduct procession/public meeting. The learned Advocate General further reiterated that the pamphlets published by the organisers causes worry and if the permission sought for are granted, it may cause disturbance in caste clashes as certain areas in the State are still under the grip of caste tension.
12. Thus, the right of the citizens to conduct procession and public meeting cannot be curtailed, except on definite reasons and not on mere surmises. In the Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in CDJ 2008 MHC 613 (cited supra) freedom to conduct meeting on a sensitive issue was considered and this Court directed to grant permission to hold the meeting and the police were directed to provide adequate protection for the smooth conduct of the meeting."
12. Per contra, learned Advocate General would contend that Annai Sivagami Nagar Playground, the place at which the petitioner is proposing to hold the public meeting is a vulnerable area for any untoward incident at any time which may result in a severe law and order problem and thereby considering such vulnerability, the respondents have rejected the request of the petitioner in according permission for holding the Public meeting in the said venue. In addition, he also submits that if permission is granted to the petitioner for conducting an election public meeting in the said venue, the other political parties will take it as a precedent and claim it a matter of right, which will invite trouble, in which case, there is every possibility of breach of peace in the locality and it would be a menace to the public.
13. In support of his case, learned Advocate General has relied on the following decisions:
(i) (2004) 4 SCC 684 (State of Karnataka and another vs. Dr.Praveen Bhai Thogadia) "6. Courts should not normally interfere with matters relating to law and order which is primarily the domain of the administrative authorities concerned. They are by and large the best to assess and to handle the situation depending upon the peculiar needs and necessities within their special knowledge. Their decision may involve to some extent an element of subjectivity on the basis of materials before them. Past conduct and antecedents of a person or group or an organisation may certainly provide sufficient material or basis for the action contemplated on a reasonable expectation of possible turn of events, which may need to be avoided in public interest and maintenance of law and order. No person, however big he may assume or claim to be, should be allowed, irrespective of the position he may assume or claim to hold in public life, to either act in a manner or make speeches which would destroy secularism recognised by the Constitution of India. Secularism is not to be confused with communal or religious concepts of an individual or a group of persons. It means that the State should have no religion of its own and no one could proclaim to make the State have one such or endeavour to create a theocratic State. Persons belonging to different religions live throughout the length and breadth of the country. Each person, whatever be his religion, must get an assurance from the State that he has the protection of law freely to profess, practise and propagate his religion and freedom of conscience. Otherwise, the rule of law will become replaced by individual perceptions of ones own presumptions of good social order. Therefore, whenever the authorities concerned in charge of law and order find that a persons speeches or actions are likely to trigger communal antagonism and hatred resulting in fissiparous tendencies gaining foothold, undermining and affecting communal harmony, prohibitory orders need necessarily to be passed, to effectively avert such untoward happenings.
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 midst 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."
(ii) 2004 (5) CTC 554 (Rama. Muthuramalingam vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mannargudi, Tiruvarur District and others) "2. The appellant by application dated 01.11.2004 sought permission of the 2nd respondent, the Inspector of Police, Mannargudi Police Station, Tiruvarur District to conduct a public meeting on 16.11.2004 to propagate the principles of the Thanthai Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam at Panthaladi Kilpuram, Mannargudi. However, by order dated 15.11.2004, the 1st respondent refused permission to the appellant-Kazhagam to conduct a public meeting on 16.11.2004, on the ground that it could affect the law and order in the locality, as there are direct clashes between the members of the appellant organisation and other organisations in connection with the arrest of the Sankarachariyar in an alleged murder case.
29. It is thus evident that public order is a matter within the domain of the State Legislature and the State Executive. That being so, it is not proper for the Judiciary to interfere in matters relating to public order, unless there is violation of some constitutional or statutory provision. There are various considerations for the administration in this matter and the Court should not ordinarily interfere with administrative decisions in this connection. It must be remembered that certain matters are by their very nature such as had better be left to the experts in the field instead of the courts themselves seeking to substitute their own views and perceptions as to what is the best way to deal with the situation. In the present case, this Court should not interfere in a matter which relates to the administration, which is in the best position to know about the public order. What public order problem would arise if speeches are permitted or prohibited in connection with the arrest of Sankarachariyar and other incidental matters? How should the problem be tackled? It is the administration that best knows these problems and their solution. This Court should therefore exercise self-restraint and should not embarrass the administrative authorities in this connection.
30. Before parting with this case we would like to briefly comment on the subject of judicial restraint while reviewing statutes or administrative decisions. We feel justified in making these comments because the times which this country is passing through requires clarification of the role of the judiciary vis-a-vis the executive and the legislature.
31. Under our Constitution the Judiciary, the Legislature and the Executive have their own broad spheres of operation. It is important that these organs do not encroach on each others proper spheres and confine themselves to their own, otherwise there will always be danger of a reaction. Of the three organs of the State, it is only the judiciary which has the right to determine the limits of jurisdiction of all these three organs. This great power must therefore be exercised by the judiciary with the utmost humility and self restraint.
32.The judiciary must therefore exercise self-restraint and eschew the temptation to act as a super legislature or a Court of Appeal sitting over the decisions of the administrative authorities. By exercising self-restraint it will enhance its own respect and prestige. Of course, if a decision clearly violates some provision of the law or Constitution or is shockingly arbitrary in the Wednesbury sense, it can be struck down, but otherwise it is not for this Court to sit in appeal over the wisdom of the legislature or the executive. The Court may feel that a better decision could have been taken or some other course of action could have been adopted by the legislature or executive, but on this ground it cannot strike down the law or the administrative decision. The legislature and the executive authorities in their wisdom are free to choose different methods of solving a problem and the Court cannot say that this or that method should have been adopted. As Mr. Justice Cardozo of the U.S. Supreme Court observed in Anderson vs. Wilson, 289 U.S. 20:
"We do not pause to consider whether a statute differently conceived and framed would yield results more consonant with fairness and reason. We take this statute as we find it."
36. The constitutional trade-off for independence is that judges must restrain themselves from the areas reserved to the other separate branches. Thus, judicial restraint complements the twin, overarching values of the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers.
40. The moral of this story is that if the judiciary does not exercise restraint and over-stretches its limits there is bound to be a reaction from politicians and others. The politicians will then step in and curtail the powers, or even the independence, of the judiciary (in fact the mere threat may do, as the above example demonstrates). The judiciary should therefore confine itself to its proper sphere, realizing that in a democracy many matters and controversies are best resolved in a non-judicial setting.
43. Having laid down the broad principles, we may now come to the facts of the present case. The order dated 15.11.2004 by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mannargudi has already been quoted above in this judgment. The said order has denied permission for holding a public meeting as prayed for by the appellant. Against that order the appellant filed a writ petition before this Court, which has been disposed off by the learned single Judge by his order dated 23.11.2004. In the impugned order, the learned single Judge permitted the appellant to approach the competent executive authority for seeking permission to hold a public meeting, as prayed for, and directed the said authority to pass appropriate orders within three days of the receipt of the application, provided the appellant-Kazhagam did not create any law and order problem in the locality, nor affect the public peace and tranquility. To this extent the directions of the learned single Judge are unexceptionable. However, in our opinion, the further direction of the learned single Judge in paragraph-10 of his order that the appellant should not speak about the arrest of the Sankarachariyar in the alleged murder case, nor justify the same, nor speak with reference to the investigation connected therewith, were uncalled for and unnecessary. The learned single Judge should have left it entirely to the administrative authorities to decide in their discretion and on the facts of the case, whether speaking about the arrest of the Sankarachariyar or justifying the same or speaking with reference to the investigation connected therewith would create any law and order problem or affect the public order. In our opinion, the entire matter should have been left at the discretion of the administrative authorities, who are best equipped to decide what would disrupt the public order or the law and order situation and what would not. By saying that the appellant should not speak about the arrest of the Sankarachariyar, nor justify the same, nor speak with reference to the investigation connected therewith, the learned single Judge has in fact taken over the task of the administrative authorities, which was not within his domain. It is entirely for the administrative authorities to decide whether speaking about the arrest of the Sankarachariyar or justifying the same or speaking with reference to the investigation would create any law and order or public order problem or not.
44. In the circumstances, we modify the direction contained in paragraph 10 of the impugned order and we leave it entirely to the discretion of the administrative authorities to decide whether permitting the appellant-Kazhagam to hold a public meeting, as prayed for, or whether speaking about the arrest of the Sankarachariyar and justifying the same, or speaking with reference to the investigation connected therewith would create a law and order or public order problem or not. If the administrative authorities feel that it may create a law and order or public order problem, then they may prohibit such activities. With the above observations, this writ appeal is disposed of. No costs."
(iii) 2010 (4) CTC 195 (M.Balaguru vs. The Commissioner of Police, Egmore and others) "13. It is well settled in law that law enforcing authorities are the best judge for meeting a situation prevailing in a particular locality based on which appropriate decision is to be taken either to grant permission to conduct meeting in a particular place and at a particular time. The Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2004 WLR 865 (Rama.Muthuramalingam, State Propaganda Committee Member, Thanthai Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mannargudi and Another) considered similar issue and held that the High Court in writ jurisdiction cannot give positive direction to grant permission to conduct public meeting, even though police refuse to grant permission. It is further held therein that if the administrative authorities feel that by granting permission to conduct meeting it may create a law and order or public order problem, then they may prohibit such activities. Applying the principle laid down by the Division Bench to the facts of this case, I am of the view that the second respondent is justified in cancelling the permission granted to conduct meeting on 5.1.2010 and there is no error in the said decision.
16. If the police failed to prevent such a meeting and if any damages are caused by the organisers of the meeting against individual persons, then only the State Machinery can be blamed for not taking effective precautionary measures and the State can be ordered to pay compensation to the affected person for not maintaining the law and order properly. That being not the case here, the petitioner is not entitled to get compensation on the ground that due to last minute cancellation he incurred expenses for making arrangements for the meeting."
(iv) W.A.No.1798 of 2013, dated 30.08.2013 (P.John vs. The State, rep. by The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City Police, Chennai) "12. The ratio laid down by the Division Bench is not only on consideration of the circumstances in which the claim was made and also on reasonable restrictions that the Division Bench permitted the petitioner therein to hold a procession with stringent conditions. In view of the above ratio laid down, the following interim directions are issued:
(i)the respondent is directed to permit the appellant to hold a procession from Rajarathinam Stadium to Langs Garden Road Junction between 4.00 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. On 01.09.2013.
(ii)the appellant shall conduct the procession without affecting law and order and without any disturbance to the public tranquility.
(iii)the appellant shall hold the procession in an organised way and with assured control of the entire cadres.
(iv)while in the procession, the appellant shall not shout any slogans affecting the religious sentiments of the people and they would do everything in a dignified manner and the organisers of the procession shall not allow any untoward incident to happen.
(v)if there is any violation of the undertaking given by the appellant in their letter of undertaking dated 26.08.2013, the respondent is at liberty to initiate action against the person concerned as may be necessary in the circumstances.
14. I have heard the rival submissions and given thoughtful consideration to their submissions, by perusing material documents available on record.
15. A perusal of the affidavit shows that the petitioner, Town Secretary of Thiruvottiyur Town of DMK Party, on an earlier occasion, made an application to the respondents 1 & 2 on 05.11.2013, requesting them to grant permission for conducting a public meeting on 15.11.2013, but owing to announcement of the Bye-Election to Yercaud Assembly Constituency, the DMK Party District unit decided to postpone the date of the meeting to 10.01.2014. As the said election was over, the petitioner again submitted a fresh application to the 4th respondent, seeking permission to conduct the postponed meeting on 10.01.2014 and also to use loud speakers by duly furnishing "No Objection Certificate" obtained from the Village Development Sangam, Annai Sivagami Nagar, Ennore.
16. While so, the 4th respondent has, vide the impugned order dated 05.01.2014, rejected the petitioner's request for such permission, by unilaterally stating that the place in which the public meeting is scheduled to be held does not come under the purview of places identified by Police for conducting public meeting.
17. The petitioner claims that the DMK Party is gearing up for the forthcoming General Election to the Lok Sabha and every District Unit of the DMK is generating funds for the party to meet the expenses in contesting Parliamentary elections, as a result of which, the Thiruvallur District Unit, in order to boost the party cadres, has decided to conduct a public meeting at Thiruvottiyur and also to hand over the collected funds to the Treasurer of the DMK Party. Though the respondents acceded to the said request earlier, subsequently, they declined the same to conduct the postponed public meeting on some prodigal remarks.
18. To examine the claim of the petitioner as to the conduct of public meeting in a democratic way, it is obligatory on the part of the 4th respondent to look into the claim as per law, as lex uno ore omnes alloquitur (The law speaks to all with one mouth) and the right of freedom of speech and expression and assembling without any arms, which is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India shall not be curtailed at any cost and even the restrictions as enshrined in Article 19(2) shall be reasonable and shall not transgress legal limits or be arbitrary. Though learned Advocate General has raised the plea of law and order problem by stating that the place earmarked for conducting the meeting is not a conducive one, the alternative places suggested by the Police, viz., (i) Wimco Nagar (near market), (ii) Opposite of Kaltivakkam Municipal Office, (iii) Near Bazaaar at Thasham Kuppam and (iv) Near Murugam Temple at Ernavoor are claimed to be far off places than the place, where usually public meetings were to be conducted by the parties.
19. The documents annexed in the typeset of papers would give a clear position that public meetings were allowed to be conducted at Annai Sivagami Nagar Playground in the past by the political parties, including AIADMK and a superstructure named as Kalaignar Kalaiyarangam has also been specially constructed for that purpose. If that being so, it is not known as to why and at whose instance, the 4th respondent has taken such a stand for prohibition of organisation of meeting by the petitioner in a democratic manner, when Libertas inaestimabilis res est (Liberty is an inestimable good).
20. One more plea raised by the learned Advocate General is that normally, no election meeting could be allowed to take part at the venue before notification of election. However, a careful reading of the impugned order shows that permission sought for is only for conducting a public meeting. Even in the month of November, that is prior to notification of any election, the request made by the petitioner received positive sign from the respondents, but due to Bye-Election, things sought to be achieved did not meet its destiny. In a democratic society, conduct of public meetings in an orderly manner and assembling without any arms is a fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) (b) of the Constitution of India. This Court also in the case of P.Nedumaran vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others (cited supra), held that the rights conferred on the citizens by Article 19 of the Constitution are precious rights and are not to be lightly restricted by the State or any functionary of the State. Moreover, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner's political party, by way of public meeting, is going to stage things, which are prejudicial to the public interest and prohibited on the ground of reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India and no other reason has been informed of by the 4th respondent in the impugned proceedings, except saying that it is not the place for public meeting as identified by Police and therefore, the right of citizens to conduct public meeting cannot be curtailed, except on definite reasons and not on mere surmises. Compelling things to be done in a particular fashion as required by the Police are not permissible in this Country.
21. A perusal of the impugned order not only shows non application of mind of the respondents, but also exhibits their ignorance in preventing constitutional guarantees available to the petitioner, as Tout ce que la loi ne defend pas est permis (Everything is permitted, which is not forbidden by law). Thus, the impugned decision in my considered opinion does not have legs to stand, and it would definitely deprive the rights of a political party and true citizens of this country. In our system of governance, democratic way of organizing and exercising things in a peaceful and congenial manner shall not be construed as a law and order problem, and it is for the State Authorities to regulate things in the manner known to law and Tractent fabrilia fabri (Let smiths perform the work of smiths).
22. Upon consideration of factors involved and scrutinizing various decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the firm and considered opinion that the order of the 4th respondent rejecting the request of petitioner for conducting public meeting at Annai Sivagami Nagar Playground, cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 05.01.2014 is set aside. The respondents are directed to accord permission to the petitioner to hold a Public meeting on 10.01.2014 at Kalaignar Arangam, Annai Sivagami Nagar Playground, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai with adequate police protection for smooth conduct of the meeting without any hindrance to the general public.
23. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
09.01.2014 Index: Yes Internet: Yes abe/ar Note: Issue order copy on 09.01.2014 (today).
To:
1. The Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai-8.
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Madhavaram Range, Chennai 600 060.
3. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ennore, Chennai.
4. The Inspector of Police (Law & Order), M-5, Ennore Police Station, Chennai 600 057.
V.DHANAPALAN,J.
abe/ar W.P.No.611 of 2014 09.01.2014