V. Vadivel vs The Commissioner of Police, The Assistant Commissioner of Police and The Inspector of Police

K.K. Sasidharan, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order dated 4 June 2013 on the file of Assistant Commissioner of Police,

Adyar, whereby and whereunder, the application submitted by the petitioner for permission to conduct a public meeting with police protection, on

8 June 2013, near Telephone Exchange, Adyar, was rejected, on the ground of law and order problem.

The facts:-

The petitioner is the Circle Secretary of Pattali Makkal Katchi, (PMK), a political party, registered with the Election Commission of India. The

petitioner used to organize public meetings to spread the message of the party and with a view to propagate its ideas to the people at large. The

petitioner wanted to conduct a public meeting on 8 June 2013 at Shastry Nagar, Adyar, Chennai. The petitioner therefore, submitted an

application before the third respondent requesting permission to conduct the meeting with police protection. The said application was taken up by

the second respondent and ultimately, it was rejected. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court.

Summary of submissions:-

The learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions:-

(i) The application was rejected on two grounds. The first ground relates to the violence at Dharmapuri and the second ground relates to the

Marakkanam incident. The Dharmapuri incident was communal in nature and it does not have the involvement of the petitioner or any other

political party. The Marakkanam incident has nothing to do with PMK. The meeting was organized by Vanniyar Sangam alone and the members

of PMK were not involved in the said incident. Therefore, the second respondent was not correct in denying permission on account of such flimsy

reasons.

(ii) PMK is a political organization, registered before the Election Commission of India. The party is recognized as a regional party. The party

being a responsible political organization have got every right to propagate its views to the people of this State. The second respondent has no right

to prevent the petitioner from conducting public meeting.

(iii) The right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a)(b) of the Constitution of India cannot be curtailed unless there are valid reasons. The order,

directing the petitioner not to conduct meeting, would affect his freedom of speech and expression.

(iv) The petitioner and his political party were not involved in the alleged violence. Therefore, the second respondent was not correct in rejecting

the application on the ground of possible violence.

The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment dated 22 June 2012 in W.P. No. 15425 of 2012 (M. Jayaraj vs. The

Superintendent of Police, Villupuram and two others), in support of his contention that under similar circumstances, this Court rejected the

contention taken by the police by projecting a case of law and order problem and directed the police to give permission to hold public meeting.

The submissions of the learned Advocate General are as follows:-

(i) There were large scale violence in and around Marakkanam and in other parts of Villupuram and Cuddalore Districts, in connection with the

Marakkanam incident on 25 April 2013. Several innocent people died in the incident of stone throwing and related violence. The members of

PMK alone were responsible for the said incident;

(ii) The members of Vanniyar Sangam are also the members of PMK. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner or his party has nothing to do

with the Vanniyar Sangam or the incident at Marakkanam;

(iii) The police assessed the law and order situation and arrived at a conclusion that in case the petitioner is permitted to conduct public meeting in

a busy place like Adyar, definitely, it would create law and order problem in the area. The application was therefore, rightly rejected.

(iv) The police is the proper authority to assess the law and order situation in the area. The police conducted a thorough enquiry in the matter and

only thereafter, the application was rejected.

(v) The right guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India is subject to reasonable restrictions. In case the exercise of such right would

create law and order problem and is a threat to public order, the same would be a valid reason to reject permission for public meeting.

The learned Advocate General placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in (i) State of Karnataka and Another Vs. Dr. Praveen Bhai

Thogadia, ; (ii) Ramlila Maidan Incident Vs. Home Secretary, Union of India (UOI) and Others, (iii) Rama Muthuramalingam, State Propaganda

Committee Member Vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police and Others, in support of his submission that Courts should not normally interfere in

matters relating to law and order, which is primarily a domain of the administrative authorities concerned.

Analysis:-

The petitioner is the office bearer of a recognized political party. The petitioner wanted to conduct a public meeting on 8 June 2013 at Adyar.

The Assistant Commissioner of police cited two reasons to reject his application for permission. According to the second respondent, there would

be a serious law and order problem, in case the petitioner is permitted to conduct a meeting as scheduled. The police have cited Dharmapuri and

Marakkanam violence as two instances to justify the order denying permission to the petitioner to hold public meeting.

The core question is as to whether the police was correct in denying permission to the petitioner on the ground of possible law and order

problem in the area on account of the proposed meeting.

The order passed by the second respondent requires to be considered in the light of the recent untoward incidents that took place at

Marakkanam in the District of Villupuram. I had an occasion during last summer vacation to consider a writ petition filed by the President of

Viduthalai Chiruthaikal Katchi (VCK) in W.P. No. 14727 of 2013. The petitioner in the said writ petition was restrained by the District Collector,

Villupuram, from entering the District and it was the said order which was challenged by the President of VCK. The District Collector, Villupuram,

filed a report in the said writ petition indicating the large scale violence that took place in and around Villupuram District subsequent to the incident

at Marakkanam on 25 April 2013. The report shows that volunteers of Vanniyar Sangam proceeded to Mamallapuram to attend Chitirai Muzhu

Nilavu Vanniyar Youth Festival, organized by PMK party. The members of the Vanniyar Sangam indulged in large scale violence and as a result,

13 houses were burnt. There were large scale damages to the properties including public property. This was followed by violence in other parts of

the State. The agitators pelted stones and petrol bombs against vehicles, killing innocent driver of one such vehicle. Police registered several

criminal cases against the miscreants. The District Collector, Villupuram, passed a prohibitory order u/s 144 of Code of Criminal Procedure,

prohibiting Thiru. Dr. Ramdas, President of PMK and Thiru. Anbumani Ramdas and other members of PMK from entering Marakkanam and its

related areas. Since the administration found that in case Thiru. Thol Thirumavalavan, President of VCK was allowed to enter Villupuram, the

same would result in serious law and order problem, orders were issued restraining him also from entering into the district of Villupuram. These

background facts are primary materials to consider the legality and correctness of the order passed by the second respondent, in the absence of

counter affidavit in this writ petition, on account of paucity of time.

The petitioner has no case that his political party was not permitted to conduct public meetings on earlier occasions. It was only after the recent

incident at Marakkanam that the district administration and police started rejecting applications for permission to hold public meetings. The learned

Advocate General, during the course of his arguments submitted that VCK also made an application for conducting public meeting at

Purasawalkam on 18 May 2013 and the said application was also rejected by the police.

The factual matrix clearly shows that the police treated both the political parties alike in the matter of considering application for permission to

conduct meeting.

There is no dispute that the right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to move through out the country, guaranteed under Article

19(1) of the Constitution of India are valuable rights. In case the exercise of such right is a threat to the law and order situation in the area, the

same can be a valid ground to impose reasonable restrictions.

The precedent:-

The Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and Another Vs. Dr. Praveen Bhai Thogadia, , observed that while permitting holding of a meeting

organized by groups or individuals, which is likely to disturb public peace, tranquillity and orderliness, administration has a duty to take into account

the previous incidents and instances involved in the area concerning persons who are organizing the function.

The Supreme Court said:-

Courts should not normally interfere with matters relating to law and order which is primarily the domain of the administrative authorities

concerned. They are by and large the best to assess and to handle the situation depending upon the peculiar needs and necessities within their

special knowledge. Their decision may involve to some extent an element of subjectivity on the basis of materials before them. Past conduct and

antecedents of a person or group or an organisation may certainly provide sufficient material or basis for the action contemplated on a reasonable

expectation of possible turn of events, which may need to be avoided in public interest and maintenance of law and order. No person, however big

he may assume or claim to be, should be allowed, irrespective of the position he may assume or claim to hold in public life, to either act in a

manner or make speeches which would destroy secularism recognised by the Constitution of India.

Therefore, whenever the authorities concerned in charge of law and order find that a person''s speeches or actions are likely to trigger communal

antagonism and hatred resulting in fissiparous tendencies gaining foothold, undermining and affecting communal harmony, prohibitory orders need

necessarily to be passed, to effectively avert such untoward happenings.

Communal harmony should not be made to suffer and be made dependent upon the will of an individual or a group of individuals, whatever be

their religion, be it of a minority or that of the majority. Persons belonging to different religions must feel assured that they can live in peace with

persons belonging to other religions. While permitting holding of a meeting organised by groups or an individual, which is likely to disturb public

peace, tranquillity and orderliness, irrespective of the name, cover and methodology it may assume and adopt, the administration has a duty to find

out who the speakers and participants are and also to take into account previous instances and the antecedents involving or concerning those

persons. If they feel that the presence or participation of any person in the meeting or congregation would be objectionable, for some patent or

latent reasons as well as the past track record of such happenings in other places involving such participants, necessary prohibitory orders can be

passed. Quick decisions and swift as well as effective action necessitated in such cases may not justify or permit the authorities to give prior

opportunity or consideration at length of the pros and cons. The imminent need to intervene instantly, having regard to the sensitivity and

perniciously perilous consequences it may result in if not prevented forthwith, cannot be lost sight of. The valuable and cherished right of freedom

of expression and speech may at times have to be subjected to reasonable subordination to social interests, needs and necessities to preserve the

very core of democratic life preservation of public order and rule of law.

The Supreme Court in Ramlila Maidan Incident Vs. Home Secretary, Union of India (UOI) and Others, in the context of prohibitory order u/s

144 Cr.P.C., observed that it is open to the police to prohibit a meeting to prevent an imminent breach of peace and such orders constitute

reasonable restriction upon the freedom of speech and expression.

Another important precept of exercise of power in terms of Section 144 Cr.P.C. is that the right to hold meetings in public places is subject to

control of the appropriate authority regarding the time and place of the meeting. Orders, temporary in nature, can be passed to prohibit the meeting

or to prevent an imminent breach of peace. Such orders constitute reasonable restriction upon the freedom of speech and expression. This view

has been followed consistently by this Court. To put it with greater clarity, it can be stated that the content is not the only concern of the controlling

authority but the time and place of the meeting is also well within its jurisdiction. If the authority anticipates an imminent threat to public order or

public tranquillity, it would be free to pass desirable directions within the parameters of reasonable restrictions on the freedom of an individual.

However, it must be borne in mind that the provisions of Section 144 Cr.P.C. are attracted only in emergent situations. The emergent power is to

be exercised for the purposes of maintaining public order.

In Rama Muthuramalingam, State Propaganda Committee Member Vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police and Others, , the appellant, a

member of Thanthai Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam sought permission to conduct a public meeting to propagate the principles of the organization.

The Inspector of Police refused permission on the ground of law and order problem. The said order was unsuccessfully challenged before the

learned Single Judge. When the matter was taken up by way of intra court appeal, the Division Bench speaking through Mr. Justice Markandey

Katju (as His Lordship then was), held that maintenance of law and order is an executive function and the Court should not normally interfere in

such matters.

The relevant observation reads thus:-

Maintenance of law and order is ordinarily an executive function and it is ordinarily not proper for the judiciary to interfere in this matter. The

administrative authorities have expertise in law and order problems through their long experience and training, and the Courts should not ordinarily

interfere in such type of matters. The judiciary must therefore exercise self restraint and not try to interfere with the functions of the executive or the

legislature. By exercising self restraint it only enhances its prestige.

This Court should not ordinarily interfere in administrative matters, since the administrative authorities are specialists in matters relating to the

administration. The Court does not have the expertise in such matters, and ordinarily should have such matters to the discretion of the

administrative authorities. It is only in rare and exceptional cases, where the Wednesbury principle applies, that the Court should interfere.

The right to conduct public meeting flows from the right under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India. This basic right is not an absolute

one, as the same is subject to reasonable restrictions. When a restriction is imposed in the interest of public order, and a challenge is made to such

restriction, the State must indicate the live link between the restriction and the public order. In case any such proximity of relationship of the

restriction with permissible objection of restriction is established, normally, it is not open to the Court to interfere with the means adopted in such

cases.

The right to hold public meetings should be considered in the context of the possible breach of peace and threat to the peace and tranquillity of

the area in question.

The following statement made by the District Collector, Villupuram, in the report dated 28 May 2013 in W.P. No. 14727 of 2013 indicates

the prevailing situation:

According to the intelligence report, PMK and VCK parties have previously blamed each other about the incidents happened in the district, more

particularly at Marakkanam, the escalation of caste clashes/tension cannot be ruled out, if any of the leaders address a public/indoor meeting about

the said incidents.

The political parties owe a duty to the public at large. The will of the people is supreme in a democratic system. The action of political parties

must be in furtherance of public interest. The political parties, whether the party in power or in opposition, must extend their helping hand to restore

peace and tranquillity in the State and to maintain it at any cost. Even for undertaking political activities, a peaceful atmosphere is an essential

requirement.

The decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 15425 of 2012 (M. Jayaraj vs. The Superintendent of Police,

Villupuram and two others) has to be considered in the factual situation of the said case. The learned Judge observed that political parties are

entitled to hold public meeting in public places to explain their policy to the public from time to time. However, in the very same judgment, the

learned Judge indicated that in case holding of such meetings would result in disturbance of law and order, it is open to the respondents to deny

permission. The judgment in Jayaraj has to be seen in the said factual situation. The situation that has emerged after 25 April 2013 was not there

when the petitioner in W.P. No. 14727 of 2013 made an application for permission to conduct the meeting.

The petitioner wanted permission as well as police protection to conduct the meeting. The police apprehends law and order problem in case

the petitioner is permitted to hold a public meeting. The order passed by the second respondent, considered in the light of the recent incidents in

Villupuram District and Marakkanam in particular and other places in the State of Tamil Nadu would support the stand taken by the police. It

cannot be said that the police have no materials to reject the application submitted by the petitioner on the ground of possible law and order

problem in the area. Therefore I do not find any merit in the writ petition.

Disposition:-

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. However, this order would not stand in the way of the petitioner in making an application before the

police for holding public meeting, at a later point of time, after normalcy is restored. No costs.