iN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 12"' DAY OF AUGUST. 2010, BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT J. GUNJAP:"'~.f":'~:\"A WRIT PETITION No.22828 OF 2010 (GM'aéi?oL:Cfii' A' Between: 1\/I.F.Khaleem S/o Abdul Razzaq, Aged about 34 years, District President. Popuiar Front of India. 2764/7, K T Street. Mandi Mohalla. Mysore. (By A Sdhfionnanna. Advocates) And : V d V V I d 1 The Ddii:isiona1--. Inspector General of Poiice, 3 Mysore Ddiflsion. Mysore. 'I'}ieAyCofnmissioner of Police. " VMysor_e'~City. Mysore. 3 d A "'Fhe S'tat.c' of Karnataka. --. 133:' its- Secretary, Department of Home Aifairs. .A _ Vidhana Soudha. V "«-Bangalore. ' Respondents
__ K.M. Nataraj. Additional Advocate General,
” along with Sri Satyanarayana Singh, AGA)
$*$*****$#
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226
of the Constitution of India praying to gtiash’r.”theV
endorsement issued by the second respondent§__dated’~–.21-ii”.
July 2010 vide Annexure D, declaring it as inoperative” and
void and to direct the respondents to granit”‘p’erl1nission to
hold the freedom parade on ii5~O8¥A20’10p ‘pursuaiit to5the’;
petitioner’s application dated 21$’;–»-_J.uly_ 2010,’
Arinexure C, etc. N, «. ‘
This Writ Petition comingv.,i§i1.yfor “£51-e1irn1:§’:–ir§~–,”Healing. it
this Day. the Court made the follovgirig; ‘ ‘
Even though’ thielflniatter lufor Preliminary
Hearing, up for final disposal.
On pState__ has entered appearance and
is represented 153* Nataraj. learned Additional
Advoieate Generaltv
8; vl..pin*~-,response to the memorandum of writ
of objections are filed by the State
–V accoinplarpiieéd by several documents. The matter arises
in the following manner.
l’ H The writ petition is filed by the District President.
it mPHopu1ar Front of India. Mysore. The petitioner proposes
/
fix
to celebrate the Independence Day on 15*” August
2010. The case of the petitioner is that, the
organized a freedom Parade at Mangalore. ~
permitted by all the authorities..~an.dgprograiiiine: H’
concluded peacefully without
of untoward incident, it ” V
demonstrates that is_.*”a:.”p_:’patriotic’,”—di.sciplined
organization, functioning’._’i’n–‘ Suffice it to
say that they. celebrate the
independence:.D’ay’l’–§orétthel”–ye:ar:f2009 at Mysore. But
however,%”Vl’ the said
perinission petitioner has made an
identical ap’pl_ication;. seeking permission to celebrate
‘l is °*~the”i~ind»epei2;ienceVDay for the year 2010. It appears the
is–.sai._d seeking permission was given on 215*
July falcopy of which is produced at Annexure C.
perusal of the request made to the Commissioner of
‘~l?Vol–ise would disclose that they would not use any
~-slogan, incite disturbances and propose to hold afl
F
-2:}/xv”
raliy/parade from Eid-gah Maidan of Tilak Nagar to
Banni Mantap Ground of Mysore, following the rou~t_e of
Puikeshi Road, Fountain Circle, and Tippu V’
said request is considered by the responderiitflidg
permission is accorded in terrrisii V
celebrate the Independence it
certain stringent conditions}aiéflaeg “really
aggrieved by the said by
the second respo_ndent,_ it it it
4. Mr. ;.1eanfie:d’:-eounsei appearing for
the pe’titio1’1ei:ii, jipre-as in’t’o'”service a ruling of the
Madrasfldighi Cottrt.,V_in_di*ca1:ing that there shouid not be
any _i.rnped4i”ment_in Aeelehrating the Independence Day.
at.,H§-‘:c.st1h1nit’so.Athatbefore the Madras High Court, one of
-..t:1’1eu ” was the petitioner. The present
For1imv_.vis_ja1so a larger body, wherein the petitioner
before-the Madras High Court has sought for a merger
” it is merged. Hence, according to him, both
.»v.-}”5’orurns stand on the simiiar footing. Further, he
“*2
5
submits that the conditions imposed are highly
arbitrary and discriminatory.
5. Mr. KM. Nataraj, learned Additional Advocate
General supports the impugned M
submits with reference to .them
annexed to the statement of objections
the Popular Front of Inditawizs as
inasmuch as they have the
international that to
preserve tranquility .a’s”‘-Well” in the area,
been ‘irriposed .
In «submission, he has pressed
into _se..rvice ‘fiieideciisionht of the Apex Court in the case
. it S~t.ate§”‘of”Karnatai¥§ia and another Vs. Dr. Praveen Bhai
i..T1ie;ga¢1i’atti_r§é§of:ed in AIR 2004 so R2081 to buttress
hiAs’~«con_tention that the Courts are required to be slow in
VVp””interfer”i-rig with the administrative decisions. He also
‘stibrnits that the Association has no fundamental right.
K’
//.7″
7. Indeed, during the course of hearing, the
Constitution of the Popular Front of India is made
available. It is not in dispute that earlier V.
three Forums i.e. Karnataka Forum for K
was operating in Karnataka,
Front, which was operatinglfatate
Neethi Pasarai, operating
Indeed all these three and the
Popular Front of India It is to be
. noticed that of ‘the Court in
respect”of«.admi?nistra:tive lhactions wherein certain
sensitive issues’=arel’~.invojved, has been dealt with
extensivelylabyl the Apexllcourt in the case of State of
‘Cit”‘–.Kail=rio.tc1f1:a”i–gind “cirio’tfier Vs. Dr. Praueen Bhai Thogadia
f.§.s_§r:fui to extract the observations made by
the—.}\pea~Co.:urt. The Apex Court has observed thus.
” Para’? : Courts should not normally
interfere with matters relating to law and
order which is primarily the domain of the
concerned administrative authorities. They /B
4′
.. 4
are by and large the best to assess and to
handle the situation depending upon theTr’»l
peculiar needs and necessities, within
special knowledge. Their decision~:Ti’nai_Az:VV’ is
involve to some extent elerner1t’_’:V.ofw
subjectivity on the basis
them. Past conductsand anltecedents. a l’
person or group or an:”Organisat’ion:
certainly provide .suff’1ci-ent”_’materialA’ or _basis
for the action corltempla’tped’4 reasonable
expectation of possible which
may needlfto interest
and and order. No
it ~- he njmay assume or
be allowed irrespective of
the.__p”ositio,n’ n1.a’y’«assume or claim to hold
‘in publiclife toleilther act in a manner or
I}’_1_:.8.l(§: spe.e__c_hcs which would destroy
sv’ecu1.ar.i,sm recognised by the Constitution of
(in short the Constitution’).
is not to be confused with
._ ,
~~ communal or religious concepts of an
it individual or a group of persons. It means
‘ that State should have no religion of lts own
and no one could proclaim to make the State
,/1%
have one such an endeavor to create a
theocratic State. Persons belonging to
different religions live throughout the length,-“=–
and breadth of the country. Each person-w:’f”*«.V.”*
whatever be his religion must ‘V’
assurance from the State that .
protection of law freely
and propagate his religion”andgfreedorn.or if
conscience, Otherxviserrthe rt1’l£’..__ of
become replaced_ by individual perceptigonsli of
ones own presurrip-tu<–:ius. order.
Therefore, whenev_erf' the " ,'l[(__/"'.*-'ficerned
authorities in c3jarge'V..:of4Vla"w._ and order find
speeche'sv.or"§actions are likely
antagonism and hatred
resulting' in tendencies gaining
_ -foothold» 'Vnunderfnining and affecting
hvarrnony, prohibitory orders need
necessfarily to be passed, to effectively avert
_« such, _uritoward happenings."
1 Indeed the Apex Court further observed that
"cornrnunal harmony should not be made to suffer and
if made dependent upon Will of an individual or a
group of individuals. whatever be their reiigion be___it of
minority or that of the majority.
9. With this preface. Wc.<W1'1l it
whether the endorsement which :by_Tth..e .'
respondent can be justified. the which " V
is sought to be pressed Stibbaiah.
learned counsel for the identical
lines. indeed":vvhat before the
Court 41 (2) of the Madras
City :7UI'11 'identical conditions were
irnposexd.VV"'Fhe tlourt was of the view that
some of the cvondi-t1ons""are un–constitut1ona1 inasmuch
,__as"V:they"~wou1d ctlearlv violate the fundamental rights of
the however, the said writ petition was
accepte,d.–'_vy.*ith a caveat inasmuch as the Madras High
Court has observed that permission is not accorded to
out a rally in public streets and the permission
Vi requested to hold the rally in a public streets is rejected/fl
I am of the View that identical situation has arisen in
the present proceedings also. Indeed. the petitioner
should not have any grievance inasmuch as condition
No.5 itself more clearly discloses that it is open}
petitioner to hold Independence Day
private property and it is
should embrace all the citizenshlglother
and without disturbing the llelence.
I am of the View that petitioner
has already been the second
responldent_i~..ff.I_ndeed_in.pl'So {arias the remaining four
conditions "are _con'c_e1"ne'd,»~"in respect of Wearing of a
parti_cularialec1_iluniiorrn they should display only the
. .l'''~Natiional'i flag andlllllnot other flags cannot certainly be
Indeed holding of a rally or a
pro'C.ess_i'onVl' a public street would certainly fall in line
«decision of the Madras High Court.
l 10. It is brought to my notice that the petitioner
,,..Front had made a request to the Station House Officer
%
H
of Shivajinagar at Bangalore to make use of the sound
system. Indeed, Mr. Subbaiah wouid press into service
the permission accorded by the poiice. But, however a
closer scrutiny of the said permission would
it is only in respect of making use of the soirnwd': _
between specified timings. That "cannot "
service to persuade this _
permission has been
present writ petition. it 9 it I V
11. Indeed, the next be as to the
Committee to celebrate
the Independe11ce’.dDay’.~~ .::II’3.l’3’i€€d in this regard, a perusal
of the gpernnssion accorded to the petitioner would
. thewceiebration is to be conducted in a
and sanctity of the Eid gah ground
sho«uid,___v’be:inaintained. It aiso puts an onus on the
ifipegtitioneer to maintain law and order. Indeed the Eid
*gva1i-ernaidan wouid certainty faii into the category as
“-inentioned in clause 5 of Annexure 1). Indeed there
,/W}
cannot be any serious objection by the second
respondent to permit the petitioner to ceiebr_aie:’-.:ti1e
Independence Day at Eid gah maidan
Needless to say that the peti_tior-oer “‘
maintain tranquility and harmony
Nationaiflag. T l 2 d it
12. Having sa.id._so, yiew,.that the
question of interference issued at
Annexure D ‘ V it
The V H Md. Gulam Abbas
and unrrdjothers, reported in AIR
1978 l1.l’1llSZ
«other hand, if the public
Sgf¢ty;«._peace’i”‘or tranquility are in danger, it
it Vto:’_j..the Magistrate concerned to take
proper vlaction under Section 144 Criminal
Procedure Code. No hard and fast rules can
* be laid down for guidance in exercising a
power on which decisions must necessarily
be governed by the existing situation in each
13
case. It has to be judged on facts and
circumstances existing at a particular place1}’»e.
at a particular time.”
Hence. the petition stands di9I30$e-d..”.:’:t)fV”if: *.the” ..
following terms:
1] The petitio’r:1_er_V
celebrate lndependencleV.:.:I}ay zit.
maidan Ummary elk/lysorefi» 5:70
021; j L I V
2] ‘ _:” The ape __ ” rnaintain
cordial it suitable
preceuitiioris arid order;
“”” “3}ivi,”lll:i’e’petitioneifisfrequired to take
other’ n1eiritiotor}f’p_errr1issions from the other
corr1p_eter1t” for the purpose of
‘ rnal<irig'-us'e'''of.'Vthe sound system during the
V Ir1deper1der1Ce"'Day celebrations;
T A Indeed the petitioner cannot rally/procession in the public s..tree't'si;
T 5] The rest of the conditions imposed,
would squarely fall within the decision
rendered by the Apex Court, 111 the case of
State of Kannataka and another Vs. Praveen
Bhai Thogadia (supra).
With these observations, the petition
disposed of.
Both the panties shall not
ri
copy of the order, but shall act
BMV*