The Madras High Court on Tuesday desisted from dismissing as infructuous a case related to the anti-CAA kolam protests, which rocked the State in December.justice Illanthireyan order
CHENNAIHigh Court desists from dismissing case on anti-CAA kolam protest
Legal CorrespondentCHENNAI 14 JULY 2020 23:58 ISTUPDATED: 14 JULY 2020 23:58 IST
Police asked to report by August 7
The Madras High Court on Tuesday desisted from dismissing as infructuous a case related to the anti-CAA kolam protests, which rocked the State in December.
Instead, it directed the Greater Chennai city police to file its counter affidavit by August 17. Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan issued the direction on a petition filed by advocate Gayatri Khandhadai, who led the protests. She challenged prohibitory orders issued by the Commissioner of Police under Section 41 of the Madras City Police Act of 1888.
When her case, filed in January, was listed for hearing on Tuesday, Additional Public Prosecutor S. Karthikeyan told the court that the order under challenge had expired and therefore, nothing survived for adjudication on the writ petitions filed by the protester.
Advertising
Advertising
However, petitioner’s counsel M.V. Swaroop vehemently objected to the plea for dismissing the petition and said a crucial question of law had to be decided by the court. He said cases could not be booked for violating prohibitory orders unless the latter had been publicised.
According to the counsel, there was absolutely no necessity for obtaining police permission for peaceful protests unless the Commissioner of Police had issued prohibitory orders under the 1888 Act. Such prohibitory orders could be in force for a maximum of 15 days. Hence, the Commissioner had been issuing those orders periodically by mechanically assigning the same reasons again and again, he claimed and stated that none of those orders were publicised by either publishing in newspapers or through any other media.
“Without letting me know about the order, they cannot hold me guilty of having violated that order. It is only after I filed this case and Your Lordship’s predecessor (Justice P. Rajamanickam) raised questions [after which] police have begun to publicise in their Facebook,” he said.
After hearing him at length, the judge decided to examine the issue and directed the APP to ensure that a counter affidavit was filed in the case within four weeks.
