Madras High Court
Prof. Jayaraman vs The State on 18 February, 2019
Author: T.S.Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S.Sivagnanam, V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.02.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
Writ Appeal No.319 of 2019 and
Civil Miscellaneous Petition Nos.3024 & 3029 of 2019
Prof. Jayaraman,
S/o.Thangavel,
Anti-Methane Project Federation,
Rep., by its Chief Co-ordinator,
No.19/2, North Street,
Senthagudi, Mayiladuthurai,
Nagappattinam District. .. Appellant/Petitioner
-vs-
1.The State,
Rep., by The Superintendent of Police,
Nagappattinam, Nagappattinam District.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Mayiladuthurai, Nagappattinam District.
3.The State,
Rep., by The Inspector of Police,
Mayiladuthurai Police Station,
Nagappattinam,
Nagappattinam District. .. Respondents/Respondents
APPEAL under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the
order dated 11.10.2018, passed by this Court in W.P.No.25508 of
2018, filed for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for
the records relating to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.603/SDOM-
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
V/2018 dated 19.09.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the
same, consequently direct the respondent to grant permission to
conduct the conference in order to urge the Central and State
Governments to ensure the protection of Natural resources, Mines and
Minerals of Tamil Nadu from 9 a.m. to 08 p.m., on 14.10.2018 at the
venue of A.V.C.Marriage Hall, Thiruvizhandur, Mayiladuthurai,
Nagapattinam District.
For Appellant : M/s.R.Vaigai,
Senior Counsel
: assisted by
Mr.D.Arun
For Respondents : Mr.Jayaprakash Narayanan (I/C),
Special Government Pleader
******
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.) This appeal is directed against the order passed in Writ Petition No.25508 of 2018, dated 11.10.2018.
2.The appellant filed the writ petition challenging the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, viz., The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai, Nagappattinam District, dated 19.09.2018, refusing to grant permission to conduct a Conference, which was http://www.judis.nic.in 3 originally scheduled to be held on 14.10.2018, from 09.00 a.m. to 08.00 p.m. at the venue of A.V.C.Marriage Hall, Thiruvizhandur, Mayilduthurai, Nagappattinam District.
3.The appellant is a Professor, who retired from service as Head of the Department of History, A.V.C.College, Mayiladuthurai. The appellant states that he is the Chief Co-ordinator of the Anti-Methane Project Federation. Admittedly, the said organization is not the registered one. The appellant approached the 2nd respondent seeking permission to conduct the conference, which was scheduled to be held on 14.10.2018, between 09.00 a.m. and 08.00 p.m. at A.V.C.Marriage Hall, Thiruvizhandur, Mayilduthurai, Nagappattinam District. This was rejected by the 2nd respondent, by order dated 19.09.2018.
4.Substantially for two reasons, the application has been rejected.
(i) Firstly, on the ground that 24 criminal cases have been registered against the appellant. In the order dated 19.09.2018, it has been admitted that the appellant has been objecting to the proposed Methane Project to be undertaken by a Central Government company in Nagapattinam District.
http://www.judis.nic.in 4
(ii) Secondly, in the programme schedule for the conference, the names of participants have been mentioned, and those participants are leaders of various political parties, and when they assemble and speak at the conference, there is a likelihood of conflicting opinions being voiced and it may result in clash among the followers of the various movements and parties ultimately, resulting in a law and order problem.
(iii) In addition, it has been stated that if the leaders of various political parties and leaders of various movements assemble in one place, there will be clash among the followers due to difference of opinion among them, traffic will be jammed and the public will be put to irreparable hardship.
5.The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Bench by the impugned order dated 11.10.2018. The learned Single Bench has noted the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant in the case of C.J.Rajan vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai And Another, (2008) 3 MLJ 926; Dr.Ambedkar Mandram, Thiruchuli, Rep., by its President, M.Murugan vs. The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, 2015 (6) CTC 117; The Home Secretary, Government of http://www.judis.nic.in 5 Tamil Nadu And Others vs. Era.Selvam, MANU/TN/0450/2013; E.Deivamani vs. The State, Rep., by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City Police, W.P.No.32850 of 2014: dated 12.12.2014.
6.The learned Single Bench pointed out that it is true that the State cannot stifle the voice of its citizen, however, jarring it may be to ears. The learned Writ Court further referred to the decision in the case of State of Karnataka And Another vs. Dr.Praveen Bhai Thogadia, (2004) 4 SCC 684, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Court should not interfere in the decision-making process of the police in matters relating to law and order problems and it should be best left at the hands of the Executive to take decisions on merits on a case-to-case basis.
7.It appears that the learned counsel, who had appeared before the learned Writ Court, had requested the Court to pass orders in the main writ petition, since the conference was scheduled to be held on 14.10.2018. This submission was rejected on the ground that if the authorities refuse permission, it will give a fresh cause of action for the appellant to challenge the said order.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6
8.We have heard M/s.R.Vaigai, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr.D.Arun, learned counsel for the appellant; and Mr.Jayaprakash Narayanan, learned Special Government Pleader (I/C) for the respondents.
9.When the appeal came up for admission before us on 07.02.2019, we heard the learned counsel for the appellant and passed the following order issuing directions to both the appellant as well as to the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents:-
“This appeal filed by the writ petitioner/appellant is directed against the order passed in W.P.No.25508 of 2018 dated 11.10.2018 seeking to quash the order dated 19.9.2018 passed by the second respondent herein declining to grant permission to the appellant to conduct a conference termed as 'Makkal Thiral Manadu'.
2.The meeting was scheduled to be held on 23.9.2018. When permission was refused by the said order dated 19.9.2018, among other things, pointing out that 24 cases were registered against the appellant and that the cases were registered against persons belonging to the appellant's movement, which is called as the only anti methane project federation – an unregistered organization, it has been stated that there were chances of giving speeches instigating public to raise protest against the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, a Central http://www.judis.nic.in 7 Government company, provoke the people in the area and cause law and order problem. It has been further stated that since the leaders of the opposition movement and political parties are to participate in the conference, there were chances of causing clashes among the followers of those movements and parties due to difference of opinion among them. Thus, the second respondent opined that had permission been granted, it would cause law and order problem among the public and the traffic movement would also be affected.
3.The appellant would state that the conference is to be conducted to voice their grievance against the proposed project in a peaceful manner and that the reasons assigned in the order impugned in the writ petition are totally unsustainable. It is further stated that the cases said to have been registered against the appellant pertain to the grievances raised by the appellant against the project and that there was nothing personal against him. It is also submitted that the cases came to be registered on account of political vendetta and that out of 24 cases, the appellant has been acquitted in seven of the cases.
4.However, we find that in the typed set of papers, the details regarding criminal cases, the judgment in cases where the appellant was acquitted and the copies of the first information reports, the stage of the matter have not been annexed. Therefore, we direct the learned counsel for the appellant to file an additional typed set containing all the details in respect of all criminal cases registered, concluded and pending.
http://www.judis.nic.in 8
5.Mr.R.Udhayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader accepting notice for the respondents, seeks time to get instructions in the matter. List on 14.2.2019. A copy of the typed set enclosing all the details regarding the criminal cases shall be served on the learned Additional Government Pleader by 12.2.2019.”
10.In terms of the directions issued by us in the aforementioned order, the appellant has filed an additional typed set of papers as well as a list containing the number of cases registered against the appellant. The learned Special Government Pleader has also produced the written instructions furnished by the 3 rd respondent- police.
11.In the list of cases, which have been registered against the appellant, it is stated that in 10 cases, the appellant has been acquitted and it is submitted that in all those cases, the offence which was alleged is under Sections 143 and 341 IPC. In respect of the remaining 14 cases, it is for the very same alleged offence under Sections 147 and 341 IPC in C.C.No.64 of 2017 and S.T.C.No.1018 of 2018 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Kumbakonam. In respect of the other cases, charge sheets are yet to be filed.
http://www.judis.nic.in 9
12.We find that all the cases have been registered against the appellant on the ground that he has participated in protests against the project to be developed in Cauvery Delta Basin. As pointed out by the learned Writ Court, the State cannot stifle the voice of the citizen. However, if there are genuine grounds to prohibit a conference or a meeting or a procession from being conducted, it is well open to the State to do so. However, if the objective of a conference or a meeting is with a view to peacefully project a different opinion on a particular subject, the same cannot be stifled. The decision in the case of Dr.Praveen Bhai Thogadia, (supra) is distinguishable, since in the said case, there was a prohibitory order under Section 144 Cr.P.C., therefore, any form of meeting or conference or procession was banned.
13.A Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, in the case of The Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai & Others vs. Era.Selvam & Another, CDJ 2013 MHC 2378, was considering the correctness of an order passed by a learned Writ Court granting permission to hold a procession in Chennai. The appeal filed by the State was disposed of, and in the said decision, the Hon'ble Division Bench distinguished the decision in the case of Dr.Praveen Bhai http://www.judis.nic.in 10 Thogadia, (supra) on the ground that in the said case there was a prohibitory order imposed under Section 144 Cr.P.C. At this juncture, it would be apt to refer to the decision in the case of Ramlila Maidan Incident, In Re, vs. Home Secretary And Others, (2012) 5 SCC 1, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out as follows:-
“245. ......... The people of a democratic country like ours have a right to raise their voice against the decisions and actions of the Government or even to express their resentment over the actions of the Government on any subject of social or national importance. The Government has to respect and, in fact, encourage exercise of such rights. It is the abundant duty of the State to aid the exercise of the right to freedom of speech as understood in its comprehensive sense and not to throttle or frustrate exercise of such rights by exercising its executive or legislative powers and passing orders or taking action in that direction in the name of reasonable restrictions. The preventive steps should be founded on actual and prominent threat endangering public order and tranquillity, as it may disturb the social order. This delegated power vested in the State has to be exercised with great caution and free from arbitrariness. It must serve the ends of the constitutional rights rather than to subvert them.”
14.Much earlier, in S.Rangarajan vs. P.Jagjivan Ram, (1989) 2 SCC 574, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-
http://www.judis.nic.in 11 “53. Freedom of expression which is legitimate and constitutionally protected, cannot be held to ransom by an intolerant group of people. The fundamental freedom under Article 19(1)(a) can be reasonably restricted only for the purposes mentioned in Article 19(2) and the restriction must be justified on the anvil of necessity and not the quicksand of convenience or expediency. Open criticism of government policies and operations is not a ground for restricting expression. We must practice tolerance to the view of others. Intolerance is as much dangerous to democracy as to the person himself.”
15.Yet another reason assigned for refusing permission is on the ground that several leaders of various political parties and organization are participating. We find that this can hardly be a ground to reject the permission. However, if the respondents are of the opinion that the participation of a particular individual is impermissible on account of antecedents or on account of other impeding circumstances which may occur, it would be well open to the respondents to pass specific orders, but that may not be a reason to en bloc reject the request made by the appellant. The powers of the respondent cannot be used to curtail the expression of democratic views. Undoubtedly, the respondents have got powers to regulate.
16.It is not the case of the respondent that the appellant is a http://www.judis.nic.in 12 part of a banned organization. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the 2nd respondent should be directed to consider the appellant’s application for grant of permission to conduct a conference. However, while issuing such orders, certain conditions have to be satisfied bearing in mind the public interest. Undoubtedly, the respondents have a duty to protect the interest of the public of the locality. So it has to be ensured that any meeting or conference or procession if conducted, it should not cause inconvenience to the public.
17.Very often, we find when there is movement of very important persons through the arterial roads of major cities in the State, invariably, the traffic will be completely blocked citing security reasons for the persons travelling. More often, the effect of blocking the complete traffic has a cascading effect and it takes several hours for normalcy to be restored. Therefore, adequate measures should be taken to regulate the traffic and designated parking spots can be fixed for the type of vehicles which can move into the town, the venue can also be specifically assigned and these are all the matters the 2nd respondent should do in consultation with the officials. Therefore, we dispose of this writ appeal by directing the 2nd respondent to grant http://www.judis.nic.in 13 permission to the appellant to conduct the conference subject to the following conditions on the dates which may be proposed by the appellant:-
(i) The appellant is directed to propose four dates on which he would like to conduct the conference.
(ii) Upon the date being finalised, the permission for conducting the conference shall be only between 10.00 a.m. and 05.00 p.m. for one day.
(iii) The appellant shall execute an undertaking stating that he will not make any statement, which will affect the Sovereignty of India not make derogatory remarks against persons of political parties and considering the fact that he is a retired Professor, we expect that the appellant should conduct the conference as a technical session rather than a political outburst or for personal popularity.
(iv) The appellant should not use the platform for any self-
propaganda or for any other personal vested interest.
(v) The list of invitees shall be submitted in advance to the 2nd respondent.
(vi) We give the discretion to the 2nd respondent to prune a list of delegates, who will be speaking in the conference. While doing so, the 2nd respondent cannot act in an arbitrary manner, but the decision http://www.judis.nic.in 14 should be for sound reasons bearing in mind the public interest and the interest of the State and its Sovereignty.
(vii) Other supplementary conditions relating to the number of vehicles, parking of vehicles and other regulatory directions shall be imposed by the 2nd respondent and all such conditions shall be reasonable and will bind the appellant/writ petitioner and the participants.
(viii) The 2nd respondent is directed to take a decision in this matter within a period of one week from the date on which the application is made.
18.With the above directions, this writ appeal stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(T.S.S., J.) (V.B.S., J.)
18.02.2019
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking Order
abr
http://www.judis.nic.in
15
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
The State,
Nagappattinam, Nagappattinam District.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Mayiladuthurai,
Nagappattinam District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
The State,
Mayiladuthurai Police Station,
Nagappattinam, Nagappattinam District.
T.S.Sivagnanam, J.
and
http://www.judis.nic.in
16
V.Bhavani Subbaroyan, J.
(abr)
W.A.No.319 of 2019
18.02.2019
http://www.judis.nic.in