ORDER
Chettur Sankaran Nair, J.
1. Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to compel respondents, to grant him permission to hold a public meeting at Kodungallur on 16-6-1990, and at other places subsequently. The second prayer, vague as it is, cannot be granted.
2. The meeting at Kodungallur is stated for tomorrow. Petitioner would submit that he made a request by Ext.P1 on 11-6-1990, that no orders have been passed thereon, and that permission is not likely to be granted. The reason for this according to petitioner, is that the cause he proposes to advocate, is not palatable to the respondents. Counsel submits that petitioner is guaranteed freedom of expression, and that this includes the freedom to express his views through a loud-speaker. Counsel did not support his contention on the basis of any authority. I, for one, am not inclined to hold that the right to use a loudspeaker is a fundamental right in itself. Sound pollution is an accepted danger, and indiscriminate use of loud-speakers cannot be permitted. It is for the authority to satisfy itself, whether in a given situation a loud-speaker can be used.
3. As for freedom of expression, it is a constitutional guarantee and a prime perception, in a democratic society. However subject to considerations of public order, morality and decency. Justice Oliver Wandel Holmes made the classic statement, if there is any principle of the constitution, that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought not free thought for those who agree with us, but freedom of thought that we hate.” Great truths were once branded blasphemy. The best test of truth, is the power of thought to get itself accepted, in the competition of the market. The human mind is the market place of new ideas. No one can forbid efforts to change the mind of the country. But, every freedom has its frontiers. It is liable to be clipped, on grounds of public order, morality and decency, as already stated. Disaffection, sedition, riots, etc. will be valid grounds for restraint.
4. Without even an opportunity to the respondents to put forward their case, I am not inclined to grant the relief prayed for. However, respondents will consider whether on the facts of the case, permission sought for could be granted. I express no opinion on the merits.
5. Subject to this direction, writ petition is dismissed.