MI.DHA. PANDIAN @ PANDIARAJAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer sought for in the present writ petition is to challenge the order passed by the second respondent in C.No.72/DCP- South/Camp/MC/2025 dtd. 1/3/2025 and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to grant permission to the petitioner to undertake a peaceful rally culminating in the proposed public Conference meeting at Natraj Theatre on 9/3/2025 between 4.00 p,m. to 10.00 p.m.,

(2.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner as the convener on behalf of the politician recently formed Madurai People's Coalition for Religious Harmony. In India various religions groups have different way of worship and it is the duty of the every citizen as per the constitutional mandate to respect and allow their fellow citizen to carry out and continue their religious practice and beliefs. In the light of this the Tiruparankundram Hillock in the south west of Madurai District has been a symbol of religious harmony for centuries and the Muslim communities for decades now have been involved in a practice of animal sacrifice(Kanduri) in the Sikkandar Badusha Darga in an uninterrupted manner. There have been no reported incidents of clashes and tensions in the religion due to animal sacrifice for all these years. When the people were harmoniously professing their religions for a long time now the respondent police out of blue stopped Muslims from carrying animals for sacrifice to the Darga on 25/12/2025. Following this various outfits and groups started campaigning against the Muslims that they should not continue this practice of animal sacrifice which infact is a right guaranteed under Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. This Court already granted permission to one group to conduct gathering landed to be one in which inciteful slogans were used. Leaders from the outfits even said that the dhargas should be relocated and Tiruparankundram will be made Ayodhya of the South. In this alarming situation there arises an ultimate need to deliver a strong message to the people of this city and the State of Tamil Nadu that they are all one and communal harmony should prevail. Therefore in order to prevent a potentially tense situation and to preserve communal harmony of Madurai, various right based movements, individual social workers and leaders from all religious affiliations have come together and formed the Madurai People's Coalition for Religious Harmony and are undertaking various steps to preserve religious harmony and prevent communal tensions one of which among is the rally culminating in a public meeting. The petitioner has sent a representation dtd. 19/2/2025 but the same has not been considered. Therefore the petitioner has filed this petition before this Court on 28/2/2025 and after knowing the same the proceedings in C.No. 72/DCP-South/Camp/MC/2025 dtd. 1/3/2025 was issued by the second respondent by denying permission to conduct rally and conference with a reason that cases are pending before High Court, traffic congestion and Sec. 41 and 41(A) of Tamil Nadu City Police Act is in force from 1/3/2025 to 16/3/2025. Infact the right to freedom of speech is a fundamental right which is guaranteed under the Constitution of India and the respondent police cannot deny that. Time and again the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court granted permission to conduct meeting but the respondent police erroneously rejected the petitioner's request. Therefore the order passed by the second respondent is liable to be set aside and permission has to be granted to the petitioner to conduct rally and public meeting at Natraj Theatre on 9/3/2025 between 4.00 p,m. to 10.00 p.m., The learned Senior Counsel also relied on the following judgements passed by this Court

(3.) The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner has sent a representation to the respondents to conduct rally and public meeting at Natraj Theatre on 9/3/2025 between 4.00 p,m. to 10.00 p.m., and they passed order that as per the requisition they decided to conduct meeting in the Tiruparankundram area where two religious people claiming right over their temple, the place selected by the petitioner is also a busy area and rally cannot be conducted and already tension prevailing over locality and if the meeting is conducted it will create law and order issue between two sects of people therefore the second respondent rightly rejected the permission, considering interest of public and to ensure safety and peace to the general public. The learned Additional Advocate General relied on the following judgments of this Court.