Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.33 seconds)Himat Lal K. Shah vs Commissioner Of Police, Ahmedabad & Anr on 15 September, 1972
49. The Supreme Court in Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commr. of Police, (1973) 1 SCC 227, held that the right to assemble does not mean, that the said right can be exercised at any and every place.
Section 41 in Chennai City Police Act, 1888 [Entire Act]
Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sanghatan vs Union Of India on 23 July, 2018
30. If we are to examine the present request made by the respondent to conduct a fast for 90 days on the sands of Marina without any restrictions would definitely impinge upon the rights of the public in general. It would have direct bearing on public order. No doubt, Mr.S.Muthukrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the respondent is willing to abide by any conditions stipulated by the appellants and he is also willing to hold his protest/ fasting in any area earmarked along the 6 Kms stretch of Marina. The only point that is put forth by Mr.S.Muthukrishnan to buttress his contention that the respondent has a right to protest in the location desired by him is that Marina being close to the centre of power in the State, he would be able to attract the attention of the Authorities or the powers that be to the grievance espoused by him. This very argument has been rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan Vs. Union of India and another.
Article 51A in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Re-Ramlila Maidan Incident Dt ... vs Home Secretary And Ors on 23 February, 2012
In Ramlila Maidan Incident vs. Home Secretary, Union of India & Ors. [2012(2) Scale 682], the Supreme Court observed that rights, restrictions and duties coexist and on the one hand, it is necessary to maintain and preserve the freedom of speech and expression in a democracy, there, on the other, it is also necessary to place reins on this freedom for the maintenance of social order. It was further observed that the police have got a right to regulate a meeting and have a duty to see that the conduct of such meetings are not causing disturbance to the public or enjoyment of the right guaranteed by the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court while issuing a string of directions, incidentally, referred to the role of police.
Bombay Police Act, 1951
Durai Sankar vs The Secretary To The Government on 7 November, 2014
In Durai Sankar and others Vs. The Secretary to the Government Home Department, Government of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 2014 (5) LW 865, the learned Single Judge of this Court had considered the provisions of Section 41 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888. The learned Single Judge on an interpretation of Section 41 concluded that Section 41 will not apply to processions. The learned Single Judge had also considered the effect of Section 41A of the Chennai City Police Act r/w. 30(2) of the Police Act, 1861.
S. Rangarajan Etc vs P. Jagjivan Ram on 30 March, 1989
In S.Rangarajan Vs. P.Jagjivan Ram and others reported in 1989 (2) SCC 574, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was concerned with freedom of speech and expression in the context of a cinematograph movie criticizing the Government's policy of reservations in Government Service, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that once the the Censor Board had permitted the movie, the High Court was not right in revoking the certificate issued by the Censor Board. Even though the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that the right of freedom of expression can be reasonably restricted, the premise on which the Hon'ble Supreme Court interfered with the judgment of the High Court revoking the certificate was that two revising Committees of the Censor board had approved the film and therefore a group of persons who were intolerant to the views of others could not hold the right of expression to ransom.