Allowed

R.Muthuraja, v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC22 Dec 2014WP(MD)/20987/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court granted permission to the petitioner to conduct an 'Adal Padal Programme' at a temple on 06.01.2015, imposing strict conditions regarding timing, sound, parking, and video recording to ensure public order.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to conduct the 'Adal Padal Programme' between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. subject to conditions regarding sound, parking, video recording, and payment for police protection.

R.Muthuraja, Vs the Sub Inspector of Police — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 22.12.2014

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL

¶5

Writ Petition (MD) No.20987 of 2014

R.Muthuraja

... Petitioner

The Sub Inspector of Police, Veerapandi Police Station, Theni District

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to grant permission to the petitioner to conduct “Aadal Padal Programme” on 06.01.2015 as part of the Sri Kaliyamman Kovil Situated at Dharmaapuri (Post) Theni District.

¶12

For petitioner ... Mr.G. Anbusaravanan For respondent ... Mr.V.Muruganandam, AGP

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

Heard both sides.

¶15

According to the Petitioner, in his village there is a temple called “Sri Kaliyamman Kovil”, during the month of “Marrkazhi” the annual temple celebrations are held every year. All the villages, after consultation had decided to conduct “Adal Padal Programme” on 06.01.2015 from 6.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. It appears that the petitioner and other villagers approached the respondent on 10.12.2014 in person to provide Police Protection for the said programme. The stand of the petitioner is that the respondent received an application on 10.12.2014 and orally stated that no permission would be granted for the said programme, as that event may lead to law and order problem. Again he and other villagers met the respondent in person on 11.12.2014 and requested to grant protection, on the said programme. However, respondent had stated that no permission would be granted for the said event. Hence, he has filed the present Writ Petition, before this Court.

¶16

Per contra, it is the contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent that the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ had not submitted any petition before the respondent police and only Sangiliraja, S/o. Ramasamy, Dharmaapuri village on 24.11.2014 had submitted a petition seeking permission for the conduct of “Aadal

¶17

¶18

Padal Programme” and the permission was refused. The other stand taken on behalf of the respondent is that in the nearby village people from different communities would come and visit the said “Aadal Padal Programme” and at that point of time there is a possibility of cropping up of law and order problem. It is to be noted that the petitioner had enclosed a copy of the representation dated 10.12.2014 addressed to the respondent police. However, the said submission of the petitioner is very much disputed on the side of the respondent.

¶19

It is to be remembered that the commission of an act under the Indian Penal Code is punishable as an offence. Similarly, the act done contrary to the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986, then the same becomes an offence. In reality, one cannot assume or presume of any illegal act/any illegality even before the grant of license for the conduct of 'Aadal Padal programme' at the Petition mentioned Temple Festival to be held on 06.01.2015.

¶20

It cannot be gainsaid that Section 2 (c) of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986, defines

¶21

“ Indecent representation of women” means the depiction in any manner of the figure of a woman, her form or body or any part thereof in such a way as to have the effect of being indecent, or derogatory to, or denigrating, women, or is likely to deprave, corrupt or injure the public morality or morals .”

¶22

As a matter of fact, Section 3 of the Act, 1986 refers to Prohibition of advertisements containing indecent representation of woman. Also that Section 4 of the Act enjoins Prohibition of Publication or Sending by post of books, pamphlets, etc., containing indecent representation of women.

¶23

In this connection, this Court very significantly points out that there must be a subsisting right enforceable in a Court of Law on an individual and there must be a corresponding duty for issuance of Writ of Mandamus. An aggrieved person must have a legal right and he must aver that there is an infringement of public duty. At this stage, this Court worth recalls and recollects the decision of the DIRECTOR OF SETTLEMENTS, A.P AND OTHERS Vs. M.R.APPARAO AND ANOTHER {(2002) 4 SUPREME COURT CASES 638}, wherein it is held that 'the powers of the High Courts under Art.226 of the Constitution of India though a discretionary one and no limits can be placed upon their discretion, they must be exercised along with recognised lines and subject to certain self-imposed limitations'.

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. Apart from the above, on behalf of the Petitioner, no Statute or Enactment is cited or relied upon which confers a right upon the Petitioner to conduct/hold 'Adal Padal programme'.

¶25

¶26

One cannot brush aside an important fact that India is a signatory to the Convention of Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the same is adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in the year 1979. Further, Art.6 of the Convention enjoins that the state parties to take appropriate steps to suppress all forms of trafficking and exploitation of women.

¶27

Also, that Section 3 of the (Tamil Nadu) Dramatic Performance Act, 1954 (which came into force on 12/1/1955) speaks of 'Power of the State Government to prohibit objectionable performances.' Section 4 of the Act, 1954 also deals about the Power of the Commissioner of Police in the Presidency Town or the District elsewhere to prohibit objectionable performances temporarily. Section 5 of the Act mentions about the 'Service of order of Prohibition'. In fact, Section 6 of the Act, 1954 deals about the penalty for disobeying the order referred to in Sections 3 and 4 and the same being served on the person concerned.

¶28

It is true that Art.19 (1) (a) of the Constitution speaks of free speech and expression, but the same is subject to restrictions under Article 19 (ii), in the considered opinion of this Court. Also that a Script or Play or Drama will be considered as an objectionable one only when it falls within any of six subclauses mentioned in Section 2 (i) of the Tamil Nadu Dramatic Performance Act, 1954. The provisions of the Tamil Nadu Dramatic Performance Act, 1954 would certainly fall well within the bounds of Art.19 of the Constitution of India, as opined by this Court.

¶29

Undoubtedly, the right to freedom of speech and expression is a valuable and cherished the right possessed by a Citizen of our Country. It is always open to the State Government to impose/make such reasonable restrictions which are permissible as envisaged under Art.19 (2) of the Constitution of India.

¶30

Added further, no individual can be deprived by his fundamental rights. The State by its legislative power is entitled to regulate the fundamental rights by imposing reasonable restrictions. However, the said restrictions must be relied to Art.19 (2) of the Constitution of India. Each restriction must be a reasonable one. The restriction to be imposed can only be within the authority of Law. A restriction cannot be exercised merely by an executive power without any Law to back it. In this connection, this Court pertinently points out the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, FATEHGARH AND ANOTHER Vs. Dr.RAAM MANOHAR LOHIA {AIR 1960 SUPREME COURT CASES 633 (V 47 C 100)}, whereby and where under, it is observed and held as under:-

¶31

“Concept of 'public order' in India https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ before the amendment of Art.19 by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act 1951, in America and in England compared, AIR 1950 SC

¶32

¶33

124and air 1950 SC 129 and AIR 1952 SC 329 AND (1940) 310 US 296, Ref.

¶34

By the amendment of Art.19 (2) by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 the wide concept of 'public order' is split up under different heads. All the grounds mentioned in cl (2) can be brought under the general head 'public order' in its most comprehensive sense. But the juxtaposition of the different grounds indicates that though sometimes they tend to overlap, they must be ordinarily intended to exclude each other. 'Public order' is, therefore, something which is demarcated from the others. In that limited sense, particularly in view of 'public order' is synonymous with public peace, safety and tranquillity. It is the absence of disorder involving breaches of local significance in contradistinction to national upheavals, such as revolution, civil strife and war, affecting the security of the State.

¶35

The distinction between the phrases “in the interest of public order” and “for the maintenance of public order”, does not ignore the necessity for intimate connection between the Act and the public order sought to be maintained by the Act. (S) AIR 1957 SC 896, expl.:(S) AIR 1957 SC 620.Ref.

¶36

The limitation that the restrictions shall be “reasonable”, brings about the same result. In order to be reasonable, the limitation must have a proximate connection with “public order” and not one far-fetched, hypothetical, problematical or too remote. AIR 1950 FC 67, Ref. and applied. ”

¶37

Be that as it may, since the Petitioner is desirous of conducting the 'Adal Padal programme' on 06.01.2015, this Court grants him permission to conduct the said programme at the petition Temple on 06.01.2015 between 7.00 p.m., and 10.00 p.m., subject to the following conditions:-

¶38

(i). The 'Adal Padal Programme should be conducted by the Petitioner in an organised and peaceful atmosphere without causing any Law & Order problem.

¶39

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

¶40

(ii). The Petitioner and other Members of the Committee are directed to file an affidavit in a collective form before the

¶41

¶42

Respondent/The Sub Inspector of Police, Veerapandi Police Station, Theni District that there will not be any obscene or vulgar dance during the performance by any one of the participants or others.

¶43

(iii). The Petitioner is permitted only to use box type loud speaker (and not cone type loud speaker) with 80 decibels sound.

¶44

(iv). The Petitioner/Celebration Committee is to provide adequate parking facility/place for parking of vehicles/two wheelers/four wheelers/bicycles/vehicles for the visitors of the programme who come to the Temple to view the programme.

¶45

(v). The Petitioner/Festival Committee Member/s is/are directed to provide adequate light and sound facilities for the programme in question.

¶46

(vi). In case, if the scheduled programme is to be conducted at an inside auditorium, strictly, the Petitioner/Organisers are to make provision for two exits.

¶47

(vii). The Petitioner/Celebration Committee is to provide separate sitting place for men/women/children to view the programme in question.

¶48

(viii). The Petitioner/Organising Committee Member/s is/are directed to apply for necessary licence by means of writing addressed to the Respondent/ The Sub Inspector of Police, Veerapandi Police Station, Theni District is to accord necessary permission to the Petitioner/Festival committee Members to conduct the programme on 06.01.2015 scheduled between 07.00 p.m., and 10.00 p.m., of course by imposing necessary conditions/restrictions.

¶49

(ix). The Petitioner/Festival Committee Member/s is/are to remit the necessary money before the Government Treasury under the proper head of account for providing Police 'Bando-bust' and the receipts thereof should be produced before the Respondent/The Sub Inspector of Police, Veerapandi Police Station, Theni District prior to the commencement of the programme.

¶50

(x). The Petitioner/Celebration Committee Members is/are to record the entire 'Adal Padal programme' if any through video form to handover a copy of the video to the Respondent Police.

¶51

(xi). It is made quite clear that in this schedule programme which is to take place on 06.01.2015 between 07 p.m., and 10.00 p.m., at the petition mentioned Temple, if any problem/problems crop up, then, the Petitioner/Organisers is/are to own full responsibility.

¶52

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (xii). If the Petitioner/Festival Committee Members violates/violate any one of the conditions as aforesaid, then the Respondent/The Sub Inspector of Police, Veerapandi Police Station,

¶53

¶54

Theni District is to take necessary action in the manner known to law and in accordance with Law (including the one under the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986, (60 of 1986) and to put an end to the said programme.

¶55

(xiii). More importantly, if the Programme/programmes exceeds/exceed the time limit determined by this Court between 07.00 and 10.00. p.m., on 06.01.2015 evening, then the Respondent/Police without any haziness/hesitation whatsoever is directed to step in immediately and stop the Adal Padal programme/cultural/dance/drama programme.

¶56