S SIVABALAN Vs. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is a member of a Political Party. Seeking permission to conduct a public meeting on 24.8.2010 at Arisikadai Veethi, Tiruppur, he submitted an application on 11.8.2010 to the Inspector of Police, Tiruppur South Police Station, the second Respondent herein. The All Students Federation organized a Hall Meeting on 1.3.2009 at Harvey Gurusamy Marriage Hall at Tiruppur, in which, his party speaker, Thiru. Nanjil Sampath, addressed the public. Two other meetings were also organized on 9.9.2009 and 17.6.2010, wherein, Thiru. Nanjil Sampath was the special speaker, to address the meetings. Believing that necessary permission would be granted by the second Respondent, the Petitioner had arranged necessary arrangments to conduct the public meeting, including making payments in advance for Electrical Generators, Electrical Lights, Public Address System, Hiring of chairs for providing seats to the public who attend the meeting, Printing of Wall Posters, Bit notices, etc. Without considering the Fundamental Right of a Citizen to have freedom of speech and expression to address a public meeting, by impugned order, dated 18.8.2010, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirupur Sub-Division, Tiruppur, 1st Respondent herein, denied permission to conduct the public meeting scheduled on 24.8.2010, on the ground that an action had already been initiated against the above said Speaker, by the Tiruppur North Police for speaking against the Sovereignty of India and taking into consideration of the prevailing situation in Tiruppur and the existence of a regulatory order under Section 30(2) of the Police Act and if permission is granted, there would be a possibility of law and order problem. Being aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, seeking to quash the order, dated 18.8.2010 and consequently, for a direction to the Respondents herein to grant permission to conduct a public meeting, addressed by Thiru. Nanjil Sampath, at Tiruppur District.

(2.) Assailing the correctness of the impugned order and placing reliance on a judgments of this Court in P. Nedumaran v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.,1999 1 LW(Cri) 73, S. Sivabalan v. State of Tamil Nadu W.P. No. 18208 of 2003, dated 7.7.2003, C.J. Rajan v. Deputy, Superintendent of Police,2008 3 MadLJ 926, Patchaimal K.T. v. Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari and Ors.,2009 5 MadLJ 1477, Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. State of Tamil Nadu W.P. No. 26007 of 2008, dated 3.11.2008, S. Sasikala Sambath v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.,2009 3 MadLJ(Cri) 393, dated 21.4.2009 and C. Sakthivel v. Commissioner of Police, 2010 8 MadLJ 877, Mr. G. Devadoss, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that denial of permission to conduct a public meeting infringes the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression, guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that he belongs to a political Party, registered with the Election Commission of India under Section 29-A of the Representation of People Act and it has not been declared as an unlawful association in India and therefore, there cannot be any total restriction in the democratic State to express their views about the pros and cons of any political system and propagate their political ideology. He further submitted that the decision of the first Respondent, in denying permission to hold a public meeting, on the ground that if permission is granted, there would be a possibility of law and order problem, is actuated with mala fide intention and such decision has been taken not to cause any embarrassment to the ruling party.