M JAYARAJ Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who is the Town Secretary of Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK) which is a registered political party. In this writ petition, the challenge is to the impugned order passed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tindivanam, dated 30.5.2012 denying permission for the petitioner to conduct a public meeting explaining the policies of the party on 5.6.2012. The authority, i.e., the second respondent had denied permission to conduct the public meeting in the Gahdhiar Thidal, Tindivanam on the ground that Section 30(2) of the Police Act, 1861 is in force and also due to law and problem.

(2.) WHEN the writ petition came up on 19.6.2012, this court ordered notice on admission. The learned Additional Government Pleader was directed to get instructions from the respondents. Accordingly, a counter affidavit, dated 21.6.2012 was filed by the second respondent. A copy of the promulgation, dated 5.6.2012 under Section 30(2) in the Tindivanam town for a period of 15 days from 5.6.2012 to 19.6.2012 and also the promulgation dated 20.6.2012 for a period of 15 days from 20.6.2012 to 04.07.2012 issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tindivanam were produced, thereby implying that in view of the promulgation order under Section 30(2), permission to hold public meetings cannot be granted.

(3.) IN this context, it is necessary to refer the judgment of the Supreme Court in Himat Lal K.Shah V. Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad reported in AIR 1973 SC 87 = 1973 (1) SCC 227 rendered by a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, wherein, the Court struck down Rule 7 of the Rules framed under the Bombay Police Act on the ground that Rule, which empowered the Commissioner of Police to refuse permission to hold meetings without giving any guidance under the Rule and thereby conferring an arbitrary discretion, was an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of assembly guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution. The Court also held that the work "regulating" in Section 33(1)(o) of the Bombay Police Act would include the power to prohibit and impose the condition that permission should be taken a few days before the holding of the meeting on a public street. Mathew, J., dissented from the view of the majority and held that the power to regulate did not include the right to prohibit and the permission sought for holding a meeting ought not be refused. The majority opinion was that regulation is necessary to enable citizens to enjoy the various rights in crowded public streets, and that the State can make regulation in aid of the right of the assemble of each citizen and can impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of Public order.