Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The petitioner informed about the aforesaid programmes to the Commissioner of Police in their letter dated 29.03.2015 and the petitioner assured the Commissioner of Police that the programmes will be conducted in a peaceful manner and the women, who come voluntarily to remove the Thali, will participate in the function along with their husbands.

4. While so, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vepery Range, Chennai, passed the impugned order dated 12.04.2015 under Section 41(2) of the Madras City Police Act, 1888, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) prohibiting the programmes that will take place on 14.4.2015 at Periyar Thidal, Chennai, on the ground that the same would create law and order and public order problem and also result in religious disharmony. It is also stated in that order that the petitioner failed to seek permission under Section 41 of the Act.

9.8. He submitted that every endeavour shall be made by the State to uphold the valuable Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution, i.e., in this case, freedom of speech and expression and to assemble peacefully and without arms. Particularly, since the Programmes are to take place only at the private place, and not in any public place, the State shall give protection to the petitioner to exercise the Fundamental Right guaranteed under the Constitution and the State shall not deprive the Fundamental Right citing the law and order problem that could be created by the persons with opposing view points and ideologies, when there is no incriminating materials against the petitioner.

10.1. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General has submitted that the police authorities anticipate that law and order problem would be created by a group of persons and organisations, who are opposing the Programmes of the petitioner. The learned Advocate General heavily relied on the Intelligence Reports and handed over the same in a sealed cover.

10.2. The learned Advocate General submitted that the State is neither supporting the views of the petitioner nor opposing the said views and the impugned order was passed only in the interest of public safety that could be disturbed by the persons and organizations espousing opposite points of view.

19. In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that the impugned order is violative of Article 19(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution and the State shall provide adequate police protection to the petitioner to protect and to exercise the Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution.
On facts :
20.1. The learned Advocate General submitted that the State is neither supporting nor opposing the point of view of the petitioner and the impugned order was passed anticipating law and order problem that could be created by some groups, as per the Intelligence Reports. It is absolutely not the case of the State that the petitioner would cause law and order problem and no allegation is made by the State questioning the credentials of the petitioner Movement with regard to its strict adherence to the principles of non-violence.