Thevarina Papthukappu Peravai vs The Superintendent of Police and The Sub Inspector of Police

N. Kirubakaran, J.—Courts cannot take safety and security of the people very lightly, especially, when the police which is the law enforcing

agency, contends that there will be a law and order problem, if the petitioner is permitted to conduct a public meeting. Mr. Aayiram K.

Selvakumar, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents.

By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

The police is the best authority, who knows the pulse of the people and the reality of the situation in the area and take appropriate decision.

In this case, the petitioner applied for permission to conduct a meeting at Chekkadi in Melur - Thiruvadhavaur Road, at 06.00 p.m., on

28.07.2013, to explain about the decision taken in the meeting. However, the second respondent denied the permission on the ground that it

would create law and order problem.

Heard the submissions of Mr. D. Srinivasaragavan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Aayiram K. Selvakumar, learned Government

Advocate appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

Nomenclature of the petitioner itself would suggest that it is a community organisation representing one particular community and the intention of

the petitioner is to conduct a meeting on 28.07.2013 to explain about the decision taken with regard to the current political situation and also

ensuing Parliamentary elections. When a communal organisation conducts a meeting, definitely there will be speeches and play of songs hailing one

particular community and leaders of that community. Any speech which touches upon the community, would definitely affect the peaceful

atmosphere which is in existence as on date. This Court cannot ignore the contention of the police that the situation in that area is very volatile

where two major communities are residing and number of cases have already been registered against each other, especially, under the provisions

of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Ignoring the aforesaid contention of the law enforcing agencies, it is not possible for this Court to give a direction as prayed for, sitting on appeal

over the decision of the police, who is entrusted with the great task of maintenance of law and order.

No doubt, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court in C. Sakthivel Vs. The Commissioner of Police , wherein

it has been held that no authority can prohibit the democratic activities unless prohibited under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India. There is

no quarrel with regard to the above proposition. Any democratic right should be exercised with caution and no right is absolute and it is only

subject to restriction and regulation. In the guise of exercising a democratic right, no one can be allowed to infringe the right of others. In this case,

the police vehemently contends that the situation is volatile and the area is a vulnerable one and therefore, the permission was rightly denied.

Merely because the petitioner has got a right, it does not mean that the police cannot deny permission. Even though the petitioner would submit

that they will abide by the law and order, and they will not create any law and order problem, the petitioner may not be in a position to give

guarantee to the acts of their volunteers who will assemble at that time and one can predict the mood of the mass and it may change according to

the speeches that are being delivered.

Admittedly, it is a community organisation and naturally, one can expect the speeches regarding the communities. In that event, there is a

likelihood of incitement of heat and resultant violations and injuries to the people, even loss of lives.

Freedom of speech and expression is nowadays misused leading to violence, loss of lives, causing injuries and damage to properties. Freedom

of speech and expression as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, would be subject to restriction under Article 19(2) and

Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees protection of life and personal liberty. When there is likelihood of danger to safety and

security of citizens, more importance is to be given to protection of life as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, than freedom of

expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. To put it otherwise, safety and security of the citizens is paramount

compared to democratic rights. Article 21 of the Constitution of India has to be given predominant position in our Constitution of India rather than

other Articles.

The Honourable Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and Another Vs. Dr. Praveen Bhai Thogadia, held in para 6 as follows:

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 organization may certainly provide sufficient material or basis for the action contemplated on a reasonable

expectations of possible turn of events, which may need to be avoided in public interest and maintenance of law and order.

This Court, already in S. Raja Maravan @ Manickavasagam Vs. The Superintendent of Police and The Inspector of Police, declared that

when the law enforcing agency has taken a decision assessing various factors and law and order problem, this Court cannot take a different view.

Permission was rightly refused with the object of maintenance of law and order or prevention. When the law enforcing agency has taken a decision

assessing various factors and law and order problem, this Court cannot take a different view. Permission was refused with the object of

maintenance of law and order or prevention of acts leading to disorder or disturbance of tranquility. This Court cannot sit on appeal over the

decision of the authority which is alone competent to deal with the law and order situation in the State. Therefore, the direction sought for by the

petitioner cannot be granted.

In view of that, the impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 20.07.2013, is sustained and the same is passed with an intention

to maintain the law and order problem and preserve communal harmony. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected

Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs.