AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice, K. Chandru
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge an order of the first respondent, i.e., Inspector of Police, Sooramangalam Police
Station, Salem, dated 6.6.2012 and after setting aside the same, seeks for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner and his Thai Man
Makkal Iyakkam to conduct demonstration in front of the Sona College of Technology, Salem in a peaceful manner on the day that may be fixed
by this court. When the matter came up on 27.07.2012, this court ordered notice on admission and directed the learned Special Government
Pleader to get instructions from the respondents. Accordingly, when the matter came up today, the learned Special Government Pleader produced
a written instruction submitted by the first respondent, dated 28.7.2012.
Heard both sides. The grievance of the petitioner was that he is the District Organizer of Thai Man Makkal Iyakkam which was formed with a
view to espouse the cause of the oppressed and downtrodden people of Salem District. On behalf of his association, they have decided to protest
against the management of Sona College of Technology and to conduct a demonstration in front of the said college for condemning the exorbitant
fees collected by the college and for the other irregularities committed by the management. He sought for permission to conduct demonstration in
front of the college on 8.6.2012 around 11.00 a.m. Anticipating permission, handbills were also published for informing public about the said
demonstration. The first respondent by an order dated 6.6.2012 informed that it is the practice of the department to permit public meeting,
demonstration, procession including hunger fast only in the notified places subject to law and order. Since the said place, i.e., Sona College of
Technology was not a place earmarked for such demonstration, permission cannot be granted as it is against law and also against the order of the
court and there is likelihood of breach of law and order. Hence the request for permission was rejected.
In the written instructions, it was stated that permission for such demonstration in Salem will be granted near District Collectorate in front of
Nattamai building, in front of Head Post Office, near Salem Clock Tower and near Sooramangalam Post Office. It was also stated that pamphlets
were issued with a view to threaten the management by spreading defamatory statement. The management had given a letter stating that police
must give protection to their teachers, staff, students and administration. It was also informed that there are about 3500 students are studying and
around 200 teachers are working in the college. The letter given by the college dated 06.06.2012 was also enclosed. The Inspector of Police,
Sooramangalam Police Station had written a letter to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Salem Town stating that he requires the
assistance of 1 Inspector of Police, 10 Sub Inspector of Police, 20 Head Constables, and 30 Constables so as to maintain the law and order in
case the petitioner organisation conducted demonstration.
It is rather unfortunate that the first respondent has taken the law into his own hand by denying permission. First of all, for regulating any meeting
or procession in the Corporation area, the provisions of the City Police Act will apply. Unless there is promulgation of Section 41 of the Act, the
power to regulate such meeting and demonstration will not be available even to the second respondent Commissioner of Police. It is not stated in
the instruction that there is promulgation of Section 41 is in force in Salem city or in the area where demonstration is to be conducted. In the
absence of ay such promulgation, the question of denying permission to conduct demonstration will not arise. It is not as if the petitioner''s
conducting demonstration on the issue is not relevant. The question of fleecing students by the self financing colleges has been widely noticed all
over the State. Assuming that there was no basis in the allegation made by the petitioner, that is not a ground to deny permission for conducting
demonstration as the right to conduct demonstration is subject to restrictions, which is very much available under Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution.
In this context, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Himat Lal K. Shah Vs. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad
and Another, rendered by a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, wherein, the Court struck down Rule 7 of the Rules framed under the Bombay
Police Act on the ground that Rule, which empowered the Commissioner of Police to refuse permission to hold meetings without giving any
guidance under the Rule and thereby conferring an arbitrary discretion, was an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of association and freedom
of assembly guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution. The Court also held that the word ""regulating"" in Section 33(1)(o) of the Bombay
Police Act would include the power to prohibit and impose the condition that permission should be taken a few days before the holding of the
meeting on a public street. Mathew, J., dissented from the view of the majority and held that the power to regulate did not include the right to
prohibit and the permission sought for holding a meeting ought not be refused. The majority opinion was that regulation is necessary to enable
citizens to enjoy the various rights in crowded Public Streets, and that the State can make regulation in aid of the right of the assembly of each
citizen and can impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order.
The Supreme Court also in S. Rangarajan Vs. P. Jagjevan Ram and Others, held that freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution of India means the right to express one''s own opinion by word of mouth, printing, picture or is any one manner of ideas made through
any and the communication of ideas made through any medium. Such right, however, was held to be subject to reasonable restrictions in the larger
interest of the community and the country as set out in Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Those restrictions are intended to strike a proper balance
between the liberty guaranteed, and the social interests specified under Article 19(2). The Court emphasised that the interest of freedom of
expression and social interest cannot be regarded as of equal weight and the court''s commitment to freedom of expression demands that it cannot
be suppressed unless the situations created by allowing the freedom are pressing and the community interest is endangered. The anticipated danger
should not be remote, conjectural or farfetched, but should have proximate and direct nexus with the expression. The expression of thought should
be intrinsically dangerous to the public interests. It should be inseparably locked up with the action contemplated like the equivalent of a ""spark in a
powder keg."" Further it is not the intention of respondents to prohibit the demonstration itself. The only question is the place where the
demonstration can proceed.
While dealing with a similar situation on the powers conferred on the Commissioner of Police u/s 41 of the Madras City Police Act, 1888, this
Court (R. Jayasimha Babu, J.) vide judgment in P. Nedumaran v. State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 1999 (1) L.W. (CRI) 73 defined the
scope of the rights of citizen and the power of the State to impose reasonable restriction. The following passages found in paragraphs 15 to 18
may be usefully extracted:
Para 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 an 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.
Para 16: The power conferred on the Commissioner u/s 41 of the Madras City Police Act is sweeping, that power is meant to be exercised with
great care and caution. The Madras City Police Act is a pre-Constitution enactment, and the powers conferred on the authorities at a time when
the country was under the colonial regime, and during the period when suppression of dissent was considered to be a legitimate policy of the State,
cannot be exercised after the enactment of the Constitution in the same manner, as it was exercised earlier. The Intelligence Report placed before
the Court shows that the police still have the attitude which does not seem to recognise that the country is a democratic nation, where every citizen
has a right to full and equal participation in the process of Government. No citizen can be regarded as an enemy of the State merely because he has
voiced a view which is not the one favoured by those in authority.
Para 17: The fact that the police are vested with power should not make them assume that, that power is available for exercise in any manner that
they consider fit. That power is to be exercised strictly within the ambit of the provisions of the Constitution, more particularly, the requirement that
any restriction placed on the exercise of fundamental rights should be a reasonable restriction, and the restrictions so placed should be shown to be
essential, having regard to the permissible purpose for which restrictions may be imposed.
Para 18: The fact that the petitioner-Association is voicing a view point which may not be popular cannot be a justification for preventing that point
of view being projected.
This Court is in entire agreement with the views expressed therein.
In the light of the above, denial of permission to conduct demonstration is illegal. Mr. P. Jagadeesan, learned counsel for the petitioner on
instructions stated that the petitioner would like to have demonstration on 13.08.2012. Hence the writ petition will stand disposed of with a
direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to conduct demonstration in front of the college in question on 13.08.2012. The respondents
are entitled to regulate the demonstration and also to provide necessary safeguards as the first respondent has expressed breach of law and order
due to demonstration. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.