Dismissed

The Hindu Munnetra Kalagam v. The Honourable Chief Secretary

Madras HC3 Dec 2014WP/31696/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, representing a Hindu organization, sought a writ of mandamus to prohibit the State from permitting a Muslim organization to hold a procession on the anniversary of the Babri Masjid demolition. The bench relied on Freedom of Speech and Expression jurisprudence to reject the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and connected miscellaneous petitions were dismissed; no costs.

The Hindu Munnetra Kalagam Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated : 03.12.2014

¶3

Coram :

¶4

The Honourable Mr.Justice V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN

¶5

Writ Petition No.31696 of 2014 and MP.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014

¶6

The Hindu Munnetra Kalagam, rep. by its General Secretary K.Gopinath

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

Vs 1.The Hon'ble Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Fort.St.George, Chennai. 2.The Director General of Police, The Director General of Police Office, Radhakrishnan Road, Mylapore, Chennai-4.

¶9

3.The President, the Tamilnadu Muslim Munnetra Kalagam, No.7, Vadamaracoir Street, Mannadi,Parrys Chennai. ...Respondents

¶10

PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the first and second respondent authorities from giving permission to the third respondent or any other Muslim associations for conducting procession or any other events in the name of Babar Mosque Destruction to the upcoming years by considering the representation dated 28.11.2014.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Mylsamy For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi, AGP

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition seeking a prayer that this Court has always considered to be antithetic to democratic practices.

¶14

Heard Mr.K.Mylsamy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2.

¶15

The petitioner is an advocate and he is also the General Secretary of the Hindu Munnetra Kalagam for the districts of Tirupur and Coimbatore. His grievance is that the Tamilnadu Muslim Munnetra Kalagam, which is the third respondent herein, has planned to conduct

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

processions and demonstrations on 6.12.2014, demanding the restoration of the Babri Masjid. According to the petitioner, such processions and demonstrations, if allowed, would destroy the peace and tranquility and the atmosphere of religious tolerance. Therefore, the petitioner seeks the issue of a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the State Authorities from granting any permission either to the Tamilnadu Muslim Munnetra Kalagam or to any other organizations for conducting any procession or other events on the occasion of the anniversary of the demolition of Babri Masjid, on 6th December.

¶18

In P.Manimaran Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chennai-17 [W.P.No.30803 of 2014 dated 26.11.2014], I had an occasion to consider the Fundamental Right of the citizens to freedom of speech and expression. I had pointed out therein that only two institutions have been maintaining consistency. When so many organizations professing different faiths, which, at times, are antithetic to each other, come up before this Court, this Court repeatedly passes orders directing the Government to give permission to all organizations holding view points lying on both extremes of the spectrum. This is on the basis of Fundamental Right to freedom of speech and expression.

¶19

When this Court is trying to enforce the Constitutional mandate by directing the State to grant permission to all Authorities, it is not open to the petitioner to use the very same Court to curtail the Constitutional mandate. As a matter of fact, Hindu Munnani came up with two writ petitions seeking permission to hold demonstrations on the very same day namely 6th December 2014, at Thiruvennainallur and Villupuram. Yesterday, I disposed of the writ petitions granting permission to Hindu Munnani. Once permission is granted to Hindu Munnani to hold demonstrations on 6.12.2014, it is completely unethical and unlawful to deny permission to organizations holding opposite point of view.

¶20

Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the above MPs are also dismissed.

¶21

True Copy

¶22

Sd/Assistant Registrar Dated:11.12.14 Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

¶25

1.The Hon'ble Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Fort.St.George, Chennai.

¶26

2.The Director General of Police, Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai-4.

¶27

+1 cc to Mr.K.Myilsamy,Advocate,SR.58716

¶28

+1 cc to Government Pleader, SR.58925.

¶29

bvr(co) krd 12/12

¶30

WP.No.31696 of 2014 & MP.Nos.1 & 2 of 2014

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The Hindu Munnetra Kalagam v. The Honourable Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Hindu Munnetra Kalagam v. The Honourable Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Kuppusamy Vs The District Collector

M/s.Srivatsa Marketing (India) Vs The Commissioner

M.Ranjith Kumar, Vs The Commissioner

C.Subramaniyan Vs The Tahsildar

Lakshmi Cargo Company Ltd., Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

Smt.J.Sarasa Vs The State of Tamilnadu