In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated: 23/11/2004
Coram
The Honourable Mr. Justice P.D.DINAKARAN
Writ Petition No.29481 of 2004
T.Thangarasu .. Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The Superintendent of Police,
O/o. The Superintendent of Police,
Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
O/o. The Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Cuddalore District
Cuddalore. .. Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.
For petitioner : Mr.S.Ananthanarayanan
for Mr.G.Ethirajulu
For respondents : Mr.A.L.Somayaji,
Addl. Advocate General,
assisted by Mr.S.Venkatesh,
Spl. Govt. Pleader.
:O R D E R
When a request was made by the petitioner, who is a Town Secretary of
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Cuddalore, to conduct a public meeting on
11.10.2004 at 6.00 pm at Manjakuppam Ground, Cuddalore, on behalf of the
United Progressive Alliance Parties to ventilate the alleged vindictive and
undemocratic and foisting false cases against the leaders and cadres of the
opposition parties, the same was rejected by the second respondent herein in
his proceedings dated 8.10.2004. Hence, the petitioner has preferred this
writ petition for the issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for
the records relating to the proceedings made in Na.Ka.No.142/S.D.O.P Camp/2004
dated 8.10.2004 and the consequential order made in Na.Ka.No.143/S.D.O.P
Camp/2004 dated 8.10.2004 passed by the second respondent, quash the same and
direct the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner to conduct a
public meeting at Manjakuppam ground, Cuddalore on 17.10.2004.
2. Heard Mr.S.Ananthanarayanan, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Additional Advocate General appearing
for the respondents.
3. By proceedings dated 8.10.2004, which is impugned in the above
writ petition, the second respondent refused permission to the petitioner to
conduct a public meeting on 11.10.2004 at 6.00 pm at Manjakuppam Ground,
Cuddalore, on behalf of the United Progressive Alliance Parties, on the ground
that the permission to conduct a public meeting to speak about the implication
of one Thiru.T.Velmurugan, a Member of Legislative Assembly, who belongs to
Pattali Makkal Katchi, a constituent unit of United Progressive Alliance
Parties, in a murder case of one Venkatesan, District Board Counselor, who
belonged to the ruling party AIADMK, cannot be granted, as the investigation
into the said crime is still pending and in progress.
4. Pending the above writ petition, the petitioner filed an
additional affidavit dated 4.11.2004 giving an undertaking that neither the
petitioner nor any of the participants on behalf of United Progressive
Alliance Parties will speak about the alleged crime said to have been
committed by Thiru.T.Velmurugan, MLA, in a public meeting. The petitioner has
also stated in the affidavit to the effect that he and the other participants
would not refer or address anything related to the alleged involvement of
Thiru.T.Velmurugan, MLA, in Venkatesan murder case. The relevant portion of
the affidavit of undertaking dated 4.11.2004 filed by the petitioner reads as
follows:
“I state that undertake that we will not refer or address to the
alleged involvement of Mr.Velmurugan, M.L.A., in the Venkatesan ( deceased)
murder case, as the said meeting is only to voice forth our legitimate
grievances and constructive criticism of the United Progressive Aliance
Parties against the autocratic attitude of the ruling Government of
Tamilnadu.”
5. I have given careful consideration to the submissions of both
sides.
6.1. The maintenance of law and order should not depend upon any
undertaking or violation of such undertaking, as the maintenance of law and
order is a subject within the domain of the executives, who should be given a
free hand in the matter of investigation into the crimes.
6.2. Addressing a public meeting, much less expressing opinion on the
investigation into the crimes, particularly grave crimes, such as murder, are
liable to be deprecated, as the right of freedom of speech and expression
conferred under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India
should not be extended to jeopardize the investigation into the crimes. Even
though a trial by the public is a very antithesis of the rule of law,
particularly in sensational criminal cases, the law does not prohibit such
enthusiasm of the public, which is understandable; but require the players in
such activity to keep within certain limits.
6.3. If any one is permitted to speak either about the implication or
involvement of the accused in any crime, particularly in the sensational
crimes, either in the form of opinion, view or agitation either by political
or apolitical organisations, in my considered opinion, the same would nothing;
but exploitation of the right conferred under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of
the Constitution of India, as it would otherwise be a serious inroad into the
domain of the authorities, who maintain the law and order, affecting and
offending the investigation undertaken by the authorities concerned, but also
will prejudice the right of the defence of the accused in the crime, leading
miscarriage of justice in violation of the rule of law, one of the strongest
pillars of the democracy
6.4. As the life of democracy runs through the veins of rule of law,
it is the duty of the Court to give appropriate directions to the authorities
concerned in order to uphold the rule of law.
7.1. Hence, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned
proceedings of the second respondent dated 8.10.2004, refusing permission to
conduct a public meeting, as the petitioner initially proposed to speak about
the implication of Thiru.T.Velmurugan in Venkatesan murder case.
7.2. However, appreciating the stand taken by the petitioner as well
as on behalf of the leaders of the opposition parties in filing an affidavit
undertaking that that they will not address or raise the issue pertaining to
the implication of Thiru.T.Velmurugan, MLA, in Venkatesan murder case, while
dismissing the writ petition, petitioner is at liberty to approach the
competent authority seeking permission for conducting a public meeting
mentioning alternative date and venue to ventilate the alleged vindictive and
undemocratic approach of the ruling party towards the leaders and cadres of
the opposition party. On receipt of such application, the authority concerned
shall grant permission to the petitioner, imposing a condition that the
petitioner Kazhagam shall neither create any law and order problem in the
locality; nor affect the public peace and tranquility; nor speak about the
implication of Thiru.T.Velmurugan in Venkatesan murder case; nor with
reference to the investigation connected therewith; or any other conditions as
they may deem it fit and necessary to maintain law and order, public peace and
tranquility.
8. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed with the above
observations. No costs. Consequently, WPMP.Nos.35801 and 36972 of 2004 are
also dismissed.
23.11.2004.
Index : Yes
Internet: Yes
ATR
To
1. The Superintendent of Police,
O/o. The Superintendent of Police,
Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
O/o. The Deputy Superintendent of
Police,
Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.