Freedom of Expression and speech – Permission to hold rally denied – Authorities not to forget Article 19 – Directed to grant permission. (Madurai hc
This judgement ranked 1 in the hitlist.
photo_camera
picture_as_pdf
description
stop
Kidar Bisme v. Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi, Thoothukdui District, (Madras)(Madurai Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 1707738
MADRAS HIGH COURT
(Madurai Bench)
Before:- Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, J.
W.P.(MD)No. 5004 of 2020. D/d. 10.03.2020.
Kidar Bisme – Petitioner
Versus
The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi, Thoothukdui District and ors. – Respondents
For the Petitioner:- Mr. Henri Tiphagne, Advocate.
For the Respondent:- Mrs. M. Ananthadevi Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side).
IMPORTANT
Freedom of Expression and speech – Permission to hold rally denied – Authorities not to forget Article 19 – Directed to grant permission.
Constitution of India, 1950 Article 19 Freedom of Expression and speech – Permission to hold rally denied – Amendments to Citizenship Act – Issue being debated at all levels – India being a vibrant and functioning democracy ought to allow both to articulate their respective sides – Authorities not to forget that Article 19 confers the right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to assemble peaceably and without arms subject to reasonable restrictions – Respondent directed to grant permission.
[Para ]
ORDER
Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, J. – With the consent of the learned counsel on either side, the writ petition is taken for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.
The petitioner, in his capacity as coordinator of a protest group, had given an application on 11.02.2020 to the second respondent seeking permission to hold a public meeting on 13.03.2020 at V.V.D.Signal, Tuticorin for condemning the recent amendments made to the citizenship law. His request was rejected by the second respondent vide order bearing Na.Ka.No.15/Forecast/B3 PS/TUT/2020, dated 04.03.2020. Challenging the same, this writ petition came to be filed.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and called upon this Court to allow the writ petition as prayed for. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the impugned order is a well-reasoned one and does not warrant any interference. She wanted this Court to sustain it and dismiss the writ petition.
I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record.
No one can dispute that the issue raised by the petitioner is being debated at all levels at present. Writ petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court. Articles are being written both for and against. Leaders and intellectuals are taking positions. While Harish Salve finds nothing discriminatory in the amendments, Suthrith Parthasarathy calls it unconstitutional. India being a vibrant and functioning democracy ought to allow both to articulate their respective sides. The authorities ought not to forget that Article 19 of the Constitution of India confers the right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. These fundamental rights, of course can be subjected to reasonable restrictions laid down in Article 19(2) and (3) of the Constitution of India but not more or beyond.
Why then the second respondent chose to say “No” to the petitioner? The second respondent seems to entertain serious apprehensions in view of the recent riots that Delhi witnessed over this issue. I am of the view that the misgivings of the authority are baseless. The site chosen by the petitioner is the usual place where such meetings are organized. Unlike Shaheen Bagh and Jaffrabad, the petitioner’s group does not propose to block public streets. The petitioner’s counsel states that the meeting will be conducted in such a manner that the general flow of traffic is not affected. A stage alone will be erected. The decibel levels of the amplifier will not exceed the permissible limits. The meeting will start at 06.00 p.m. and conclude at 10.00 p.m. The speakers will not make hate speeches or incite violence. Nothing prejudicial to national integrity and sovereignty of India will be done.
When on an earlier occasion, I recorded the undertaking of the petitioner’s counsel that the number of participants will not exceed a certain limit, a comment was made that Judges should not ration the amount of rights to be exercised. This in my view fails to take note of the ground realties. For instance, Thol Thirumavalavan in a recent interview to a web journal “The Wire” stated as follows:-
“After we have had done all arrangements, the city Commissioner said he was contemplating approaching the High Court to reject the permission because the city cannot handle such huge numbers. Throughout February 21, a day before the rally, we negotiated with him, moved the rally point to a distant place and complied with other conditions including starting the rally by 3.30 pm and ending it by 06.15 pm.”
When a meeting or rally is organized, it does involve logistical arrangements to be made by the administration also. Hence, organizers are bound to take the local police as well as the administration into confidence and indicate the number of participants expected to take part. In the case on hand, the site in question is in the service road. The petitioner’s counsel states that a maximum of 750 chairs alone will be put. The organizers will have to cooperate with the police and ensure smooth and peaceful conduct of the event.
In this view of the matter, the impugned proceedings stand quashed and the writ petition is allowed. The second respondent is directed to issue proceedings granting permission for holding the proposed meeting on 13.03.2020 at V.V.D.Signal, Thoothukudi. It is open to the second respondent to incorporate appropriate conditions on the lines mentioned above.
Even though the writ petition is allowed, I cannot help remarking on one other aspect. The writ petitioner is a political activist and office bearer of a recognized party. He had been arrested on 07.03.2020 in connection with Crime No.117 of 2020. He was also remanded to custody. The petitioner’s counsel remarked on the timing of the arrest. I went through the contents of the FIR. The only allegation made against the petitioner is that he mediated in a matrimonial issue and threatened the defacto complainant. The allegation against the petitioner is that on the occurrence date, the petitioner gave a severe look and gazed at the defacto complainant. When the defacto complainant protested, the petitioner is said to have hit him with a stone. The defacto complainant does not appear to have suffered any major injury. Yet the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. was invoked and the petitioner was arrested and remanded to custody. The petitioner’s counsel would state that invocation of Section 307 of I.P.C. is to overcome the threshold bar against remand laid down in Arnesh Kumar judgment. I express the hope that the learned Sessions Judge will take of this order and grant bail to the petitioner herein so that the petitioner will be able to participate in the meeting to be held on 13.03.2020. The petitioner’s counsel however submitted that since the petitioner had already been remanded, alternate arrangements had been made for holding the meeting.
.
| Home | Quick Search | Online Brochure (Download PDF) | 7 things you must try with Law Finder | Products | Help | Feedback | About Us | License Agreement | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy |
For help and suggestions call +91 9878777111
