Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.25 seconds)Section 41 in The Madras City Police Act, 1888 [Entire Act]
S. Rangarajan Etc vs P. Jagjivan Ram on 30 March, 1989
In the decision reported in (1989) 2 SCC 574 (S.Rangarajan v. P.Jagjivan Ram) in paragraph 53 the Supreme Court held thus,
"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 views of others. Intolerance is as much dangerous to democracy as to the person himself"
Article 19 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 41 in Chennai City Police Act, 1888 [Entire Act]
The Madras City Police Act, 1888
C.Sakthivel vs The Commissioner Of Police on 23 August, 2010
(i) C.Sakthivel vs. The Commissioner of Police (2010 (5) CTC 134)
"8. It is seen that the petitioner is the District Secretary of Bahujan Samaj Party, North Chennai. It is claimed by him that his is a major political party in Indian continent and it is fighting for socially underprivileged and marginalized people through constitutional means and within the purview of established law. The petitioner also claims that the party is democratically fighting against social evils, concerns of the public, and conducting agitations through various methods viz., rally, fasting, dharna, public meeting etc. The petitioner gave a letter to the respondent on 24.07.2010 and sought for permission to convene the protest on 30.07.2010 against the action of the Government in respect of suspension of C.Uma Shankar, I.A.S., between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. in front of Memorial Hall, which is the scheduled place for staging demonstration by all. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the respondent, requesting to appear, for which the petitioner gave a reply on 28.07.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner met the respondent in person along with his counsel. However, permission to conduct the agitation was denied by the respondent, by passing the impugned order, dated 28.07.2010. Therefore, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that it is in violation of Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. The petitioner has specifically contended that the respondent ought to have followed Section 41 of the Madras City Police Act,1988, and the respondent has power to regulate the meetings, but not to refuse the permission of meeting.
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
Himat Lal K. Shah vs Commissioner Of Police, Ahmedabad & Anr on 15 September, 1972
In the decision reported in AIR 1973 SC 87 (Himat Lal K.Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad), it is held that although right to hold a public meeting at a public place may not be a fundamental right by itself, yet it is so closely connected with fundamental right that a power to regulate it should not be left in a nebulous state. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees to all citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression subject to reasonable restrictions on the grounds set out under Article 19(2). The reasonable limitations can be put in the interest of sovereignity and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement of an offence.
Thol.Thirumavalavan vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 12 July, 2013
(iii) Thol. Thirumavalavan vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and others (2013) 6 MLJ 137
"11. This Court, after considering various situations, particularly when there was a request for re-post mortem of the body of the deceased Elavarasan and the same was also allowed by this Court to be conducted by the Doctors from All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi and thereafter, funeral ceremony will be scheduled to be held on the date fixed by the family members of the deceased Elavarasan, is of the view that it is for the District Magistrate to take decision on the representations received from several political leaders including the petitioner, expeditiously, so that actus curiae neminem gravabit, which means, an act of law does no wrong."
1