AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.—This is a pro bono publico tiled by the Secretary of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (D.M.K.), the main
opposition in the Stale of Tamil Nadu.
A Mandamus is sought for forbearing the Respondents i.e. the Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Home Secretary, the Director
General of Police and the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, and their subordinates from preventing the office bearers and cadres of
D.M.K. party from participating in the picketing on 15.12.2003 in front of the State and Central Government offices and also from making any
preventive arrests.
According to the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the D.M.K. party wants to stage protests in the form of picketing
so as to express their resentment about the Governmental actions, which, according to them, are anti-people. It is their case that in order to apprise
people, they want to stage this picketing at Government Offices, both Central and State, and that in order to foil their attempts, the police are bent
upon effecting large scale arrests on the pretext of preventive arrests in a colourable exercise of power u/s 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
This matter came up yesterday (11.12.2003) and was adjourned to this date as the Respondents wanted to file a counter. We have perused the
counter filed by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, and also heard the arguments advanced by either side.
Dissent is the essence of the democracy and Clauses (a) and (b), read together, to sub-Article (1) of Article 19 of the Constitution, grant
Fundamental Rights to citizens to assemble peaceably and without arms and also of freedom of speech and expression. But they shall be subject to
such reasonable restrictions as envisaged in sub Articles (2) and (3) of Article 19. Sub-Article (2) is not very much relevant for this case and what
is relevant is sub-Article (3) under which the State is entitled to place such reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order. While the
Petitioner and his party are entitled to assemble peaceably and without arms, the police are entitled to place reasonable restrictions and in fact,
such assembly can only be subject to permission, which can be granted u/s 41 of the Madras City Police Act, 1888. The Petitioner has filed an
application on 3.12.2003 seeking permission to stage picketing but the same was rejected by the order of the third Respondent No.
1607/T.P.2/2003, dated 9.12.2003.
Picketing involves the prevention of the Officers. Staff and sub-Staff from entering the Government offices and that will be interfering with the
discharge of their duties and that will cripple the Governmental functions. The same cannot be allowed. But Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, learned senior
counsel, appearing for the Petitioners, submits that there will be a peaceful picketing. We are not able to accede to this contention as it certainly
interferes with the duties of the Government employees.
We are of the considered view that picketing as proposed by the Petitioner is impermissible as it will be detrimental to public interest. Likewise,
picketing in front of General Hospital and also railway station is impermissible. What can be permitted by the Respondents is the peaceful
procession permitting the Petitioner and his party cadres to express their views by slogan shouting but without indulging in any violence and the
Petitioner and his party cadres shall follow such regulatory methods, which the police formulate for the purpose of peaceful procession, without
halting anywhere and fixing the starting point and the destination point and in such rows as may be permissible, either single row or double rows,
without interrupting the normal flow of traffic. This shall be formulated by the police tonight (12.12.2003) itself and then make the Petitioner know
about the same in writing. In so far as preventive arrests are concerned, we direct the Respondents not to make any arrests by going into the
residence of anybody. However, this shall not preclude the police from exercising their power u/s 151 of Code of Criminal Procedure when there
is an actual attempt to commit any cognizable offence in a public place.
With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Consequently, W.P.M.P. No. 43949 of 2003 is dismissed.