S.Veerakumar v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gobi Sub Division, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 19.07.2012CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRUW.P.No.13453 of 2012andM.P.No.1 of 2012S.Veerakumar.. Petitioner Vs.1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gobi Sub Division, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District.2.The Inspector of Police, Kavindapadi Police Station, Erode District... Respondents This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for the issue of a writ ofcertiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to theorder of rejection passed in Na.Ka.No.241/SDOG/Mike/2012, dated07.05.2012 on the file of the first respondent, quash the sameand to direct the respondents to permit the petition to holdagitation (Kandana Aarpattam) for the cause mentioned in theapplication of the petitioner dated 04.05.2012 to be held on19.05.2012 or any other subsequent dates. For Petitioner : Mr.S.DoraisamyFor Respondents : Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, Spl.G.P.- - - - ORDERThe short question that arises for consideration iswhether the first respondent is justified in refusing to givepermission to the petitioner to conduct protest demonstrationagainst the closure of Beef stall run by the Aruntathiyinarduring weekly market at Kavundappadi?2.The petitioner claims to be the Convener of the jointcommittee for Caste Abolition. He had applied for the conduct ofprotest demonstration on 09.05.2012 at 03.00 p.m. vide hisrequisition letter dated 4.5.2012 to the second respondent. They https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ had also printed handbills in furtherance of their decisionholding protest demonstration. In their handbill published, theyhad stated that in the weekly market, the Arunthathiyinars of thevillage were conducting Beef stall for over 40 years. Thepanchayat had cancelled permission to conduct the beef stall. Tocondemn the decision of the panchayat, a massive protestdemonstration was organized on 09.05.2012 near Four Road junctionin Kavundappadi. The first respondent by the impugned order dated07.05.2012 had stated that taking into account the law and ordersituation and in view of the promulgation of section 30(2) of thePolice Act, permission was refused. Hence the writ petition wasfiled challenging the same.3.When the writ petition came up on 16.5.2012, this courtdirected the learned Additional Government pleader to takenotice and to get necessary instructions from the respondents.Accordingly, the learned Additional Government Pleader produced awritten instruction from the first respondent stating thatpermission to conduct protest demonstration at four road junctionagainst the action of the panchayat cannot be granted. It wasstated that certain local persons were selling beef in the openplaces at the market area at Kavandappadi twice in a week. As itwas in the open place and was not healthy for human consumption,the panchayat had issued an order prohibiting the sale of beef atthe open place in terms of Section 157 of the Tamil NaduPanchayat Act, 1994. The panchayat had also allotted a new areaadjacent to the existing area. The new area is covered withcompound wall and clean. The beef sellers have also installed thebeef stall at the new place allotted by the panchayat. But thethree persons belonging to the village did not accept thedecision ad they have already filed a writ petition before thiscourt being W.P.No.4051 of 2012 against the show cause noticedated 6.2.2012. That writ petitin was disposed of with adirection to the panchayat to consider the replies sent by thepetitioners and till such time, the panchayat was directed not tointerfere with their business. 4.Thereafter, curiously the first respondent in thewritten instruction had stated as follows :"In the wall posters, the printed matterswere in the nature of developing the communaldisharmony between the different communities ofHindu Religion. Also, names of the President andothers had been mentioned in the wall poster andthey had been shown as communally fanatics, If thepetitioner Veerakumar had been permitted toconduct agitation at Kavandapadi 4 road junction,it would have been created communal tension.......... https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ In the interest of justice, maintainingLaw and Order and safe guarding the communalharmony between the different communities and toavert untoward incident I had not grantedpermission to conduct agitations (Dharna) asrequested by the petitioner Veerakumar."5.A copy of the panchayat resolution dated 26.3.2012banning the conduct of beef stall in the weekly market underSection 157 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, was also produced.It was stated that if the aggrieved person applies for a shop inthe newly allotted place, it will be considered. 6.However, the question is not whether the panchayatdecision is legally valid or not. The question is related to thepetitioner's right to demonstrate even assuming that the decisionof the panchayat was legally valid or not. Therefore what isinvolved is the petitioner's right to protest against thedecision of the local panchayat and their fundamental right toconduct such a protest.7.As to the preference of persons eating beef and tryingto get it from the local market, the Supreme Court had anoccasion to say in the matter vide its judgment in Hinsa VirodhakSangh v. Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamat reported in (2008) 5 SCC 33and in paragraph 31, it was observed as follows:"We have to take a practical review of thematter. Most people do not have the money topurchase meat from other cities or other Statesand bring it to Ahmedabad. Almost all meat-eatersget their meat from the local butcher shop in thecity, usually from a shop which is close to theirresidence. Hence, closure of the slaughter house,in substance, means compelling the non-vegetariansto become vegetarians for 9 days".8.The present question is concerned only with the ban onconducting demonstration against the panchayat's decision. It isthe right of every section of public or any individual to lodgetheir protest as enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of theConstitution. Unless restriction provided under Article 19(2) ispressed into service, such demonstration cannot be curtailed bythe respondents. The respondents had stated that if demonstrationis allowed, it will cause communal disharmony among differentcommunities of Hindu Religion. 9.Now, it has to be seen whether the stand taken by therespondents is justified? No doubt, the persons who were runningbeef stall belonged to Arunthathiyinar community. Traditionallythey were doing such business as alleged by the petitioner forover four decades. Merely because they happen to be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Arunthathiyinars and they wanted to conduct protest demonstrationagainst the decision of the panchayat which will automaticallylead to communal fight is only a futile imagination by the firstrespondent. In fact, Dr.Ambedkar, who was a Champion for theright of downtrodden had an occasion to consider the protest bythe scheduled caste people against the Hindu religion followingChathurvarna (four castes) and also treating the scheduled casteas Avarna (no caste). It was stated that mere conduct of peacefulprotest is not suffice and it is fair to participate in suchevent. It is necessary to refer to the quoting of Dr.Ambedkar,which reads as follows:"Now the Oppressed Classes must not spendmoney and manpower fruitlessly and must stop thefight on Satyagraha front. They must now considertheir society separate from the Hindu society andorganised the former to obtain for it an independentand respectable place in the country. Henceforth,all Depressed Classes must not take part in anyHindu religious festivals, Ratha, worships and othersimilar occasions."[Rev.Dr.K.David Pandyan: Dr.B.R.Ambedkar andthe Dynamics of Neo-Buddhism, New Delhi, 1996,p.80].10.He also referred to the continuous struggle between theHindus and the Untouchables as a permanent phenomenon and statedas follows :"To put it straight, it can be said that thestruggle between Hindus and the Untouchables is apermanent phenomenon. It is eternal, because of thereligion which has placed you at the lowest level ofthe society is itself eternal, according to timesand circumstances, is possible. You are at thelowest rung of the ladder today. You shall remainlowest forever. This means the struggle betweenHindus and Untouchables shall continue forever. "[-Dr.B.R.Ambedkar: ‘Why Conversion?’ inB.R.Ambedkar: Political Thinkers of Modern India,edited by Verinder Grover, New Delhi: 1993, p.4.]11.As to the nature of fight by the scheduled castepeople against the religious fanatics in the Hindu religion, hehad described the fight is for changing the mind of the Hindus.Further, he had stated that it is not a mere question of templeentry, but it is a struggle to change the Hindu mind set and hadstated as follows :"Your problems will not be solved bytemple entry. Politics, economics, education, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ religion—all are part of the problem. Today’ssatyagraha is a challenge to the Hindu mind. Arethe Hindus ready to consider us men or not; wewill discover this today . . . We know that thegod in the temple is of stone. Darsan and pujawill not solve our problems. But we will startout, and try to make a change in the minds of theHindus." [E.Zelliot, From Untouchable to Dalit.Essays on the Ambedkar Movement, Delhi: Manohar,1992, p.114.]12.Therefore, in the light of these if it is seen, thereasons set out by the first respondent cannot be accepted as avalid reason. This court do not think that there will be anycommunal division much more religious division between Dalits andrest of Hindu followers in the said village. On the other hand,the need of agitation is only on the ban by the panchayat inrunning the beef stall, thereby jeopardizing the interest ofpersons who are traditionally carrying on the said trade. 13.In this context, it is necessary to refer the judgmentof the Supreme Court in Himat Lal K.Shah V. Police Commissioner,Ahmedabad reported in AIR 1973 SC 87 = 1973 (1) SCC 227 renderedby a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, wherein, the Courtstruck down Rule 7 of the Rules framed under the Bombay PoliceAct on the ground that Rule, which empowered the Commissioner ofPolice to refuse permission to hold meetings without giving anyguidance under the Rule and thereby conferring an arbitrarydiscretion, was an unreasonable restriction on the freedom ofassembly guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution. TheCourt also held that the work “regulating” in Section 33(1)(o) ofthe Bombay Police Act would include the power to prohibit andimpose the condition that permission should be taken a few daysbefore the holding of the meeting on a public street. Mathew, J.,dissented from the view of the majority and held that the powerto regulate did not include the right to prohibit and thepermission sought for holding a meeting ought not be refused. Themajority opinion was that regulation is necessary to enablecitizens to enjoy the various rights in crowded public streets,and that the State can make regulation in aid of the right of theassemble of each citizen and can impose reasonable restrictionsin the interest of Public order.14.Further, the Supreme Court also in S.Rangarajan V.P.Jagjivan Ram reported in 1989 (2) SCC 574 held that freedom ofspeech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India meansthe right to express one's own opinion by word of mouth,printing, picture or is any one manner of ideas made through anyand the communication of ideas made through any medium. Suchright, however, was held to be subject to reasonable restrictions https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in the larger interest of the community and the country as setout in Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Those restrictions areintended to strike a proper balance between the libertyguaranteed, and the social interests specified under Article 19(2). The Court emphasised that the interest of freedom ofexpression and social interest cannot be regarded as of equalweight and the Court's commitment to freedom of expressiondemands that it cannot be suppressed unless the situationscreated by allowing the freedom are pressing and communityinterest is endangered. The anticipated danger should not beremote, conjectural or far fetched, but should have proximate anddirect nexus with the expression. The expression of thoughtshould be intrinsically dangerous to the public interests. Itshould be inseparably locked up with the action contemplated likethe equivalent of a “spark in a powder keg.”15.Therefore, it is too late for the respondents torefuse permission to hold a demonstration. With respect to therespondents' reliance upon Section 30(2) of the Police Act, 1861,it can only be said that it enables the respondents to direct thecontrol and conduct of all assemblies and processions on publicroad or in the public streets or thoroughfares and to prescribethe Rules by which and the times by which the processions maypass and Section 30(2) and (3) on which reliance was placed, isextracted below:“Sec 30(2): He may also, on being satisfied thatit is intended by any persons or class of personsto convene or collect an assembly in any suchroad, street or thoroughfare, or to form aprocession which would, in the judgment of theMagistrate of the district, or of the sub-divisionof a district, if uncontrolled, be likely to causea breach of the peace, require by general orspecial notice, that the persons convening orcollecting such assembly or directing or promotingsuch procession shall apply for a licence.(3)On such application being made, he may issue alicence, specifying the names of the licensees anddefining the conditions on which alone suchassembly or such procession is to be permitted totake place, and otherwise giving effect to thissection.”16.Therefore, the said provision is only a regulatorypower and not a blanket power to trifle any democratic dissent ofthe citizens by the Police.17.While dealing with a similar situation on the powersconferred on the Commissioner of Police under Section 41 of theMadras City Police Act, 1888, this Court (R. Jayasimha Babu, J.)vide judgment in P. Nedumaran v. State of Tamil Nadu and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ others reported in 1999 (1) L.W. (CRI) 73 defined the scope ofthe rights of citizen and the power of the State to imposereasonable restriction. The following passages found inparagraphs 15 to 18 may be usefully extracted:Para 15:"The rights conferred on thecitizens by Article 19 of the Constitution areprecious rights and are not to be lightly breachedor restricted by the State or any functionary of theState. Any regulation of exercise of those rightsmust be for the purposes specified in Article 19 ofthe Constitution itself, and that power must be soexercised as to subserve the larger public good.The power to impose restrictions is not the powerwhich is available for exercise in an arbitrarymanner or for the purpose of promoting the interestof those in power, or for suppressing dissentDemocracy can be made dynamic an truly alive onlywhen there is free market for ideas and discussionand debate is not only permitted but is encouraged.All expression of opposing view point cannot beregarded as dangerous to the safety or security ofthe country and all expressions which do not findthe approval of those exercising the power of theState cannot be regarded as harmful to the State andto the public order.Para 16:The power conferred on theCommissioner under Section 41 of the Madras CityPolice Act is sweeping, that power is meant to beexercised with great care and caution. The MadrasCity Police Act is a pre-Constitution enactment, andthe powers conferred on the authorities at a timewhen the country was under the colonial regime, andduring the period when suppression of dissent wasconsidered to be a legitimate policy of the State,cannot be exercised after the enactment of theConstitution in the same manner, as it was exercisedearlier. The Intelligence Report placed before theCourt shows that the police still have the attitudewhich does not seem to recognise that the country isa democratic nation, where every citizen has a rightto full and equal participation in the process ofGovernment. No citizen can be regarded as an enemyof the State merely because he has voiced a viewwhich is not the one favoured by those in authority.Para 17:The fact that the police are vestedwith power should not make them assume that, thatpower is available for exercise in any manner thatthey consider fit. That power is to be exercisedstrictly within the ambit of the provisions of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Constitution, more particularly, the requirementthat any restriction placed on the exercise offundamental rights should be a reasonablerestriction, and the restrictions so placed shouldbe shown to be essential, having regard to thepermissible purpose for which restrictions may beimposed.Para 18:The fact that the petitioner-Association is voicing a view point which may not bepopular cannot be a justification for preventingthat point of view being projected."This Court is in entire agreement with the views expressedtherein.18.In the light of the above, the impugned order standsset aside. The writ petition will stand allowed. Since the datefixed for the demonstration was already over, the learned counselfor the petitioner Mr.S.Doraisamy on instructions stated that hisclient wanted to conduct the demonstration on 27.07.2012. Hence,the respondents are hereby directed to permit the petitioner toconduct protest demonstration on 27.07.2012 at four roadsjunction at Kavundappadi. If necessary, he should give policeprotection to the demonstration. No costs. Consequently connectedmiscellaneous petition stands closed.vvkSd/-Asst. Registrar(CS-V)//True Copy//Sub Asst. RegistrarTo1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gobi Sub Division, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District.2.The Inspector of Police, Kavindapadi Police Station, Erode District.+ 1 cc to Government Pleader, SR No.42861+ 1 cc to Mr. S. Doraisamy, Advocate SR No.42308RJ(CO)SR/23.7.2012.W.P.No.13453 of 2012