Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.26 seconds)
Shanmugaraj vs The Deputy Superintendent Of on 19 December, 2003 cites

P. Nedumaran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By ... on 14 August, 2001

In this regard, it is worth-while to refer a decision of R. Jayasimha Babu, J., in Nedumaran, P. v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, reported in 1999-1-L.W. (Crl.) 73. In that case it was submitted by the Government that intelligence report clearly shows that the primary object of the meeting was to rouse the feelings of the persons to voice support for this banned organisation, and having regard to the fact that there were many factors even amongst those who were supporting the banned organisation, there was likelihood of breach of public tranquillity and public safety, and that the apprehension of such breach was neither remote nor farfetched, but was very real and direct. Rejecting the said contention, the learned Judge held: (paras 15, 16 and 17) "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.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 25 - Full Document
1   2 Next