N. Adaikalam vs The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai District and Others

N. Kirubakaran, J.—This matter is listed before us, by way of special list, on the mentioning made by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is some urgency in the matter. The appellant wants to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge, passed today (06.11.2015) and since certified copy of the order has not been made ready, the appellant has filed a petition to dispense with protection of certified copy of the order. In the above circumstances, we directed the Registry to type and circulate draft order copy of the learned Judge, for perusal and accordingly it is placed.

An internal party rivalry has been brought before this Court by way of this proceedings. The appellant/petitioner alleges that he is the Pudukkottai District President of Eluchi Tamilargal Munnetra Kazhagam, which is a political party registered with the Election Commission of India. According to the appellant/petitioner, on 25.10.2015, a lady Chairman, representing Karambakudi Panchayat Union in Pudukkottai District, was insulted in a public function, by a State Minister and in order to condemn the said action of the Minister, the appellant/petitioner''s party wanted to organize a hunger strike on 12.11.2015, from 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. In this regard, seeking permission, he gave a representation to the 3rd respondent on 03.11.2015, but he refused to receive the same, however, directed the appellant/petitioner to approach the Inspector of Police, Thirukokarnam Police Station. Appellant/petitioner further claims that when he approached the said Officer, he also refused to receive it and therefore, left with no other go, he again approached the 3rd respondent, who in turn directed the appellant/petitioner to approach the 2nd respondent, namely the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai. Appellant/petitioner also states though the 2nd respondent initially refused to receive the representation, he received it subsequently and informed him that a reply will be sent after four days. As a precaution, the appellant/petitioner alleges, he also gave a representation to the first respondent to have hunger strike to condemn the act of a Minister on 12.11.2015.

Since no permission was granted and left with no other go, the appellant/petitioner had approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition, seeking a direction to the respondents to grant permission to hold hunger strike on 12.11.2015 from 10 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. at Thilagar Thidal, Pudukkottai Town, Pudukkottai District and also to give adequate protection for the same. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both the parties, dismissed the said writ petition, against which the present writ appeal has been filed.

We have heard Mr. M. Ramu, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. D. Muruganandam, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for respondents 1 to 3.

To a query as to whether the appellant/petitioner was present at the venue where the said lady Chairman was said to have been insulted, learned counsel for the appellant, fairly, replied that the appellant/petitioner was not present and he was only informed about the verbal statement made by the Minister. Further, nowhere in the complaint/representation or in the writ petition, the appellant/petitioner has stated anything about the alleged insult said to have been made by the Minister concerned.

When the appellant/petitioner himself is not aware of the alleged incident and he was not present in the venue, based on hearsay information, he wants to condemn the minister and seeks permission to organize a hunger strike. That cannot be granted. No doubt freedom of expression is a fundamental right. However, based on flimsy and imaginable grounds, the appellant/petitioner cannot approach the Court and seek permission to observe hunger strike to condemn a State Minister. Even basic material facts are lacking, either in the complaint or in the writ petition. More over, communal card is being played. In this country, for anything and every thing community has become a card to give political colour. This case is also one such case, wherein one partyman wants to wreck vengeance against another partyman. Further, it appears that the said lady chairman should have set-up the appellant/petitioner to undertake hunger strike. If really the said lady chairman was insulted, she could have approached the appropriate authorities for appropriate relief. Without doing that, the said lady chairman also cannot play proxy war against the Minister.

By these observations, this Court does not mean to discredit anything about the incident and since there is nothing concrete has been stated in the affidavit or during the arguments, this Court finds that it is not a fit case for granting permission to stage hunger strike against a Minister. The prayer sought for by the appellant cannot be granted. We cannot take a different view than the learned single Judge, who has rightly observed that only to gain publicity, the writ petition has been filed. Even if permission is granted, it will create law and order problem, because communal card is going to be played. Therefore, looked from any angle, it is not a fit case to grant permission sought for. Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.