C N ANNADURAI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference made to this Court under Section 432, Cri. P. C. , by the second Presidency Magistrate in M. P. No. 329 of 1958 in C. C. No. 184 of 1958 at the instance of the accused, G. N. An-nadurai, leader of the D. M. K. and ten others. These eleven persons were charged in that case for having committed an offence punishable under Section 41 of the City Police Act. The case of the prosecution was that the accused had committed the offence by having proceeded towards the triplicane beach on 3-1-1958 to conduct a public meeting in defiance of the order of the Commissioner of Police, Madras, dated 31-12-1957, banning all meetings in the city except certain specified, categories of meetings which could be held without a licence and meetings for which licences had been given by the commissioner of Police, Assistant Commissioner of Police, etc. , and subject to the conditions of the licences. The accused had proposed to hold a public meeting at Triplicane Beach on 3-11958 at 6 p. m. on behalf of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and had applied to the Commissioner for permission to hold the meeting, under Clause (1) of his order dated 31-7-1957. The order dated 31-7-1957 prohibiting public meetings, except those covered by licences, and those allowed specifically, was passed because of reliable information received by the Commissioner that leaders and volunteers of the Dravida Kazhagam had, in pursuance of their earlier decision to erase the word "brahmin" from the name-hoards of hotels, and to take out processions and assemble in front of such hotels in the City of Madras for the purpose of picketing, resolved to intensify their campaign from 1-8-1957 through processions, assemblies, picketings, going together in batches, etc. and because of reliable information received by the Commissioner that the Tamil Nadu Socialist party had proposed to launch a State-wide agitation from 1-8-1957 in support of its eighteen-point charter of demand by taking out processions, assemblies, etc. , and picketing in front of the residences of Ministers and Government officers and in front of police stations, and because the Commissioner apprehended that the situation caused by the actions of the Dravida Kazhagam and the Tamilnad socialist Party might be exploited by the anti-social and hooligan elements in the city resulting in acts of mischief and violence leading to rioting and the disturbance of public tranquillity and breach of the peace, and he considered that it was necessary for the preservation of public peace and public safety to prohibit assemblies and processions for the purposes mentioned above and also for any other purposes involving a general unrest affecting the maintenance of communications and supply of services essential to the community in the city of madras. This order of the Commissioner was passed under Section 41 of the City Police Act, and it was made applicable to all assemblies and processions in any street, road, thoroughfare or other public place within the limits of the City of Madras during the period commencing from 1-8-1957, and ending with 14-8-1957, both days inclusive. On receiving the application of the accused for holding a meeting on 31-1958, the Commissioner called for a report from his subordinate and he received a report that in view of the decision of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam to hold black flag demonstrations, etc. , against Prime Minister Nehru, it was not desirable to permit the meeting at Tilak Ghat on the 3rd January on the eve of the Prime minister's visit to Madras. In view of such report, the Commissioner passed an order refusing the permission for the meeting on the ground that if it was permitted at Tilak Ghat that day the dravida Munnetra Kazhagam leaders were likely to exhort the audience to acts of violence at the time of the Prime Minister's visit and there was a likelihood of a disturbance of the peace. So, he gave them such an order, on 2-1-1958, after they had published notices that they wanted to hold black flag demonstrations to condemn the Prime Minister's speeches against Tamil leaders and in favour of hindi etc. , in their paper "nam Nadu". The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam leaders thereupon resolved to defy the ban of public meetings and to hold the meeting on 3-1-1958 in spite of the refusal of permission and to vindicate their right to freedom of speech and assembly. In the issue dated 2-1-1958, under the caption "my Request", Annadurai stated that he had decided, with the consent of the Secretary, to speak at the meeting at Tilak ghat at 5-30 p. m. on 3-1-1958, even if the police refused permission, and that thousands would applaud this decision to hold the meeting even it was banned, but added that whatever happened, the meeting should go on the most peaceful manner without the least violence or any vile act. On 3-1-1958 under the caption "my Duty" Annadurai wrote that he was determined to break the ban and address the meeting, and that if he was arrested, though it was quite natural for his followers to become angry, they should restrain themselves and behave non-violently and in a manner worthy of tamil culture. As already stated, he and his followers were arrested near the Fort umbrella, some furlongs from Tilak Ghat, when proceeding in cars to attend the meeting. At the meeting place some furlongs away, some two thousand members of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam crowd are said to have behaved in a disorderly fashion and to have pelted stones. We are not concerned in this reference with that alleged act.

(2.) WHEN the case came up for hearing, the accused wanted the learned Magistrate to refer four questions to this Court for decision under Section 432, Cri. P. C. Those four questions were :

(3.) SOME American decisions were quoted before the learned Magistrate in support of the accused's contentions that Section 41 of the City Police Act was against fundamental rights and ultra vires of Articles 19 (1) (a) and 19 (1) (b) of the constitution of India, and void also because it laid down no standards or criteria to guide the Commissioner of Police in the exercise of his discretion, but conferred an arbitrary, absolute and uncontrolled power on him without limit of time or place, or subject to any appeal to the Government or to Court, It was also contended before him that the American decisions made the Commissioner's order dated 3112-1957 under Section 41 of the City Police Act void as it was a blanket ban on all public assemblies, and not merely on assemblies likely to cause disturbances of the public peace. It was urged further that the order of the Commissioner was void also on the ground that it stated no reasons on its face to justify itself.