Madras High Court
Popular Front Of India vs The Director General Of Police on 17 February, 2015
Author: T.S. Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S. Sivagnanam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17.02.2015 Date of Reserving the Order Date of Pronouncing the Order 16.02.2015 17.02.2015 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. SIVAGNANAM W.P. Nos. 4049 & 4054 of 2015 Popular Front of India, Rep., by its State General Secretary, Sheik Mohammed Ansari 33/2, Mookathal Street, Purasaiwakkam, Chennai 600 07. ... Petitioner in both W.Ps., Vs 1.The Director General of Police, Office of the Director General of Police, Beach Road, Chennai. 2.The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Dindigul 3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, (Law and Order) Dindigul Division, Dindigul District. 4.The Sub-Inspector of Police, South Police Station, Dindigul District. ... Respondents in W.P.No.4049/2015 1.The Director General of Police, Office of the Director General of Police, Beach Road, Chennai. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Chennai District, Egmore, Chennai 8. ... Respondents in W.P.No.4054/2015 Prayer in W.P.No.4049/2015 :-Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the Na.Ka. Order No. 82/Ka.Thu.Ka.Thi.Na.U/Din/2015, dated 14.02.2015 passed by the third respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent to grant permission to the petitioner organisation for conducting peaceful procession on 17.02.2015 at about 3.00 p.m., from Manikundu to pegampoor, Dindigul along with Public meeting in Vathalakundu Road, Dindigul on the same day at about 5.00 p.m. Prayer in W.P.No.4054/2015 :-Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the Na.Ka. Order No. 150/Tha.Pee.2/2015-3, dated 15.02.2015 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to grant permission for conducting peaceful procession at Egmore Rajarathinam Stadium along with public meeting on 17.02.2015 at about 3.30 P.M., For petitioner .. Mr.S.Sathia Chandran For Respondents .. Mr.A.L.Somaya Jee Advocate General assisted by Mr.R.Vijayakumar AGP and Mr.Inbathurai Spl G.P., for RR1 to 4 C O M M O N O R D E R
The petitioner in both the Writ Petitions is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1869. In W.P.No.4049 of 2015, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.02.2015, by which the third respondent, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Law and Order), Dindigul has rejected the application filed by the petitioner seeking permission for taking out of procession on 17.02.2015, at about 3.00p.m., from Manikundu to pegampoor, Dindugal, along with public meeting in Vathalukundu Raod, on the same day at about 5.00 P.M.
3. In W.P.No.4054 of 2015, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, dated 15.02.2015, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for conducting procession at Egmore, Rajarathinam Stadium along with public meeting on 17.02.2015, at about 3.30 P.M.,
4. Mr.S.Sathia Chandran learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a Neo-Social Movement, that strives for total empowerment of the backward, oppressed and marginalised section of the society and the petitioner organisation was initially registered in Bangalore under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act and subsequently, re-registered in Delhi during 2010. It is further submitted that the petitioner actively collaborates with various Human Rights Bodies and Legal Aid Networks and provides legal support to the poor and ignorant, they run a magazine which has large circulations among Muslims. It is further submitted that the petitioner has published books on Islamic and General topics which have been widely read in the State of Tamil Nadu. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further state the procession/meeting proposed to be organised will be conducted in a peaceful manner without disturbance to the General Public and the petitioner is willing to conduct the procession without the persons participating the procession wearing any uniform resembling the members of the armed forces or Police personnel and without carrying any arms or weapons and are ready and willing to abide by such conditions that can be imposed. Further, it is submitted that 17.02.2015 is celebrated by the petitioner as a founder's day and during the previous year also the same was celebrated peacefully and only in Ramanathapuram an unfortunate incident took place and F.I.R., was registered against the cadres of the petitioner as well as the local public. The petitioner filed a public interest litigation before the Madurai Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD).No.1705 of 2014, for conducting a judicial enquiry and for awarding compensation to the affected public. The Court has directed the Government to appoint an officer in the rank of Inspector of Police to investigate the same and investigation is pending. Further, it is stated that a quash petition was filed in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5831 of 2014 to quash Crime No.67 of 2014, and F.I.R., was allowed by order dated 19.11.2014. Therefore, it is submitted that the incident referred to in the impugned order is purely political. Further, it is submitted that the fundamental rights of the citizens to conduct procession and public meeting cannot be curtailed except for definite reasons and not on mere surmises and the reasons assigned in the impugned order rejecting the permission sought for, is unreasonable. It is further submitted that public discussion with people participation is a basic feature and rational process of democracy which distinguishes itself from all other forms of Government. Further, it is submitted that the reference to the inputs alleged to have received from Intelligence Agencies cannot be a sole basis for denying permission. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in Durai Shankar & Ors., vs. the Secretary to the Government, Home Department, Government of Tamil Nadu in W.P.Nos.28677 to 28683 of 2014, dated 07.11.2014.
5. The learned Advocate General assisted by Mr.Inbadurai learned Special Government Pleader and R.Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that during the previous year when permission was granted on 16.02.2014 specific conditions were imposed that the cadres of the petitioner organisation while taking out the procession should not wear uniforms as that of the Police authorities or defence personnel, should not carry any arms such as stick, lathi etc. In spite of such conditions having been imposed while granting permission for procession on 17.02.2014, at Ramanathapuram, the petitioner organisation deliberately disobeyed the direction issued, as a consequence of which several issues arose and F.I.R. in this regard is still pending on the file of the Kenikarai Police Station for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 186, 294B, 353, 332, 323, 321, 324 and 307 IPC. Further, Intelligence Report has been received stating that steps have been taken to organise procession with cadres dressed like Policemen and defence personnel carrying arms and sticks and arrangements made to bring several people from outside the District, as a result of which vehicles from other Districts will enter Chennai and Dindigul and the time of the procession is 3.30 p.m., and if any permission is granted, it will affect the general public, the school going children who will be returning from school and the route is a congested route and there are hospitals, marriage hall etc., and would cause great hardship to the general public. Further, it is submitted that the explanation given by the petitioner to the show cause notice was far from satisfactory and therefore, the respondents rightly rejected the permission sought for. The learned Advocate General referred to the materials in the typed set of papers filed by the petitioner which appears to be a brochure of the petitioner organisation and by referring to the same, it is submitted that the organisation seeks to focus one particular issue and there is a religious colour to the same and considering the antecedents of the petitioner and since cases are pending, and even murders have taken place during last year, the respondents have refused permission. It is further submitted that the respondents are well within their jurisdiction to refuse permission on justifiable grounds and the orders impugned clearly speaks for itself and there is every justification to reject the permission sought for.
6. Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.
7. The right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to assembly peaceably without arms are fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a)&(b) and this right to subject to the restrictions provided for under clauses (2) & (3) of Article 19. To be a reasonable restriction, with regard to Article 19(1)(a) it should have nexus with public order, decency, morality, insidement of offence, contempt of court, defamation, friendly relation with foreign states and interest of sovereignty and integrity of India. Sofar as the reasonable restrictions with relation to the right under Article 19(1)(b) should have nexus with regard to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order or morality. In the case relating to Durai Shankar, referred supra, the Court was concerned about the right to take out procession not as an essential part of a religious right, but purportedly for a social cause and the right to hold a public meeting. In the background of those facts, the Court took into consideration the various decisions and taking note of the submission that the organiser are prepared to give the names and addresses of persons who will take responsibility for any untoward incident and the respondents therein having permitted procession and public meetings for several organisation, it is not possible to deny permission to the petitioners' therein.
9. It has to be pointed out that the facts of each case have to be considered independently bearing the legal principle in mind and that Article 19(2) and (3), empowers the State to impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the rights conferred under Article 19(1)(a)&(b) of the Constitution of India. If the same is done in the instant case, the issue which had arisen during 2014, when permission was granted to celebrate the founders day of the petitioner organisation on 17.02.2014, the Additional Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram passed an order on 16.02.2014, referred to Section 41A of the City Police Act, G.O.Ms.No.1208, dated 18.06.1990, prohibiting the use of Police and Defence uniforms granted permission subject to the following conditions:-
,Ug;gpDk; j';fsJ kDit ghprPyid bra;jjpy;. nguzpapy; bry;Yk; egh;fs; fhty;gilapdh; kw;Wk; ,uhQqtj;jpdh; gad;gLj;Jk; rPUilnghd;W mzpe;J mzptFj;J bry;yhky;. Ma[jk; Ve;jp (yj;jp kw;Wk; fk;g[ nghd;w ntW VnjDk; Fw;w eltof;iffspy; <Lglf;Toa bghUl;fs;) bry;yhky;. nkw;go nguzpapid rpd;df;fil ehd;F Kid re;jpg;gpypUe;J re;ij jply; tiu elj;jpf; bfhs;s mDkjp mspf;fg;gLfpwJ/ ,e;j cj;jutpid bgw;Wf;bfhz;likf;F xg;g[jy; mspf;ft[k;/
10. From the above conditions it is clear that the organisations were prohibited from permitting their cadres to wear the uniforms of Police personnel and defence personnel and not to carry any weapons. The organisers namely the petitioner agreed to the condition imposed. In spite of agreeing to the condition, records show they flouted the conditions and criminal cases are pending. It is stated that a section of the public were also affected and injured, a claim for judicial enquiry has been made, investigation is in progress, cases under Section 302 IPC have been registered and are pending and therefore, the respondents are fully justified in taking into consideration the past record of the petitioner organisation the manner in which they conducted themselves when permission was accorded subject to conditions. Past conduct is a very relevant factor, more particularly in this case as it involves public order.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the case of Durai Shankar, (supra) this Court has also dealt with the effect of the report received from Intelligence Agencies. It is to be pointed out that in the said decision, this Court observed that the Intelligence Report which was shown to the Court are of general nature and were actually received over a long period of time and not with particular reference to a rally or public meeting that the petitioners wanted to take out. The Intelligence report referred to in the impugned proceeding are with specific reference to the procession and meeting to be conducted on 17.02.2015. Therefore, those reports cannot be discredited as being of general in nature, as it pertains to the very procession and meeting for which permission was sought for. Therefore, the right to freedom of expression and speech may at times have to be subjected to reasonable restrictions to preserve public order and rule of law in the light of the data which has been referred in the impugned order and placed before this Court including the First Information Report pending investigation in respect of the incident which occurred last year i.e., 17.02.2014. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to sit as an appellate authority over the decision of the law enforcing agency. There is no error in the decision making process, the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to putforth their submissions after issuing show cause notice and there can be no complaint in this regard.
12. In the light of the above discussion, the petitioner has failed to make out any grounds for interference with the impugned order and accordingly, the Writ Petitions fail and are dismissed. No costs.
17.02.2015 pbn Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.
pbn
1.The Director General of Police, Office of the Director General of Police, Beach Road, Chennai.
2.The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Dindigul
3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, (Law and Order) Dindigul Division, Dindigul District.
4.The Sub-Inspector of Police, South Police Station, Dindigul District.
5.The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Chennai District, Egmore, Chennai 8.
Pre-Delivery O r d e r in W.P. Nos. 4049 & 4054 of 2015 17.02.2015