D ANANTHA PRABHU Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the Secretary of the Cochin Branch of the Rashtreeya Sevak Sangh (for short, Sevak Sangh) moves for a mandamus to direct respondents Nos. 1 and 2, the District Collector, Ernakulam, and the City Commissioner of Police, Ernakulam, respectively, to sanction the use of Mike Loud Speakers or such other Amplifier appliances by the petitioner and the organisation be represents. He also prays for a certiorari quashing Ext P2 proceedings of the 1st respondent. By Ext. P2 proceedings dated 15-2-1974 the Ist respondent accorded sanction to use the Durbar Hall Ground in this city for conducting the annual day celebrations of the Sevak Sangh subject to three conditions, the first of which is that "mike, loud speaker etc. should not be used at any time". The petitioner's complaint is against the imposition of this condition, and he seeks the aid of this Court to use mike, loud speakers etc. at the annual day celebrations of the Sevak Sangh to beheld on 10-3- 1974 (it is averred in the petition and submitted at the bar, that the celebrations are decided to be conducted between 5 p. m. and 8.30 p. m. on that day) at the Durbar Hall Ground. Mr. Ramakumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Art.19(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution and submits that the fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens by these clauses could be curtailed only in the manner provided for by clauses (2) and (3) of that article. The learned counsel also questions the jurisdiction of the Ist respondent to impose such a condition, and further attacks jurisdiction if any, on the ground that there are no standards or lines to guide and regulate the exercise of jurisdiction. According to the learned Senior Government Counsel who appears on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner has no fundamental right to use mike and loud speakers in the Durbar Hall Ground which is Government property. He submits that administratively the power to regulate the user of the ground is .vested in the Ist respondent, that he can impose any condition in exercise of his power to regulate the user, and can even refuse sanction to hold the celebrations without assigning any reason.

(2.) The primary question that arises for consideration is whether members of the general public have a right to assemble peaceably and without arms (as envisaged in Art.19(1)(b)) in the Durbar Hall Ground. If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative a further question arises regarding the scope of Art.19(1)(a) which guarantees freedom of speech and expression; whether that freedom extends to use of mechanical or other contrivances to amplify sound and how far the State or its officers can regulate or restrict such user. Thirdly, this case raises the question whether in the absence of any guidelines (admittedly there are no rules or regulations or executive orders) the power, If any of the Ist respondent to sanction or not to sanction public assembly and / or the use of mike, loud speakers etc. on Darbar Hall Ground is arbitrary as enabling him to discriminate between persons, without just classification.

(3.) Petitioner in Para.3 of his petition states as follows:-