Judgment : 1. Courts cannot take safety and security of the people very lightly, especially, when the police which is the law enforcing agency, contends that there will be a law and order problem, if the petitioner is permitted to conduct a public meeting. 2. Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents. 3. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 4. The police is the best authority, who knows the pulse of the people and the reality of the situation in the area and take appropriate decision. 5. In this case, the petitioner applied for permission to conduct a meeting at Chekkadi in Melur - Thiruvadhavaur Road, at 06.00 p.m., on 28.07.2013, to explain about the decision taken in the meeting. However, the second respondent denied the permission on the ground that it would create law and order problem. 6. Heard the submissions of Mr.D.Srinivasaragavan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record. 7. Nomenclature of the petitioner itself would suggest that it is a community organisation representing one particular community and the intention of the petitioner is to conduct a meeting on 28.07.2013 to explain about the decision taken with regard to the current political situation and also ensuing Parliamentary elections. When a communal organisation conducts a meeting, definitely there will be speeches and play of songs hailing one particular community and leaders of that community. Any speech which touches upon the community, would definitely affect the peaceful atmosphere which is in existence as on date. This Court cannot ignore the contention of the police that the situation in that area is very volatile where two major communities are residing and number of cases have already been registered against each other, especially, under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 8. Ignoring the aforesaid contention of the law enforcing agencies, it is not possible for this Court to give a direction as prayed for, sitting on appeal over the decision of the police, who is entrusted with the great task of maintenance of law and order. 9. 8. Ignoring the aforesaid contention of the law enforcing agencies, it is not possible for this Court to give a direction as prayed for, sitting on appeal over the decision of the police, who is entrusted with the great task of maintenance of law and order. 9. No doubt, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court in C.Sakthivel v. The Commissioner of Police, Commissioner Office, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008 reported in 2010 (5) CTC 134 , wherein it has been held that no authority can prohibit the democratic activities unless prohibited under Article 19 (2) of the Constitution of India. There is no quarrel with regard to the above proposition. Any democratic right should be exercised with caution and no right is absolute and it is only subject to restriction and regulation. In the guise of exercising a democratic right, no one can be allowed to infringe the right of others. In this case, the police vehemently contends that the situation is volatile and the area is a vulnerable one and therefore, the permission was rightly denied. 10. Merely because the petitioner has got a right, it does not mean that the police cannot deny permission. Even though the petitioner would submit that they will abide by the law and order, and they will not create any law and order problem, the petitioner may not be in a position to give guarantee to the acts of their volunteers who will assemble at that time and one one can predict the mood of the mass and it may change according to the speeches that are being delivered. 11. Admittedly, it is a community organisation and naturally, one can expect the speeches regarding the communities. In that event, there is a likelihood of incitement of heat and resultant violations and injuries to the people, even loss of lives. 12. Freedom of speech and expression is nowadays misused leading to violence, loss of lives, causing injuries and damage to properties. Freedom of speech and expression as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, would be subject to restriction under Article 19(2) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees protection of life and personal liberty. 12. Freedom of speech and expression is nowadays misused leading to violence, loss of lives, causing injuries and damage to properties. Freedom of speech and expression as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, would be subject to restriction under Article 19(2) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees protection of life and personal liberty. When there is likelihood of danger to safety and security of citizens, more importance is to be given to protection of life as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, than freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. To put it otherwise, safety and security of the citizens is paramount compared to democratic rights. Article 21 of the Constitution of India has to be given predominant position in our Constitution of India rather than other Articles. 13. The Honourable Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and another Vs. Dr.Praveen Bhai Thogadia reported in 2004 SCC (Crl) 1387, held in para 6 as follows: "6. Courts should not normally interfere with matters relating to law and order which is primarily the domain of the administrative authorities concerned. They are by and large the best to assess and to handle the situation depending upon the peculiar needs and necessities within their special knowledge. Their decision may involve to some extent an element of subjectivity on the basis of materials before them. Past conduct and antecedents of a person or group or an organization may certainly provide sufficient material or basis for the action contemplated on a reasonable expectations of possible turn of events, which may need to be avoided in public interest and maintenance of law and order." 14. This Court, already in S.Raja Maravan @ Manickavasagam v. The Superintendent of Police reported in 2013 (1) CTC 314 , declared that when the law enforcing agency has taken a decision assessing various factors and law and order problem, this Court cannot take a different view. Permission was rightly refused with the object of maintenance of law and order or prevention. When the law enforcing agency has taken a decision assessing various factors and law and order problem, this Court cannot take a different view. Permission was refused with the object of maintenance of law and order or prevention of acts leading to disorder or disturbance of tranquility. When the law enforcing agency has taken a decision assessing various factors and law and order problem, this Court cannot take a different view. Permission was refused with the object of maintenance of law and order or prevention of acts leading to disorder or disturbance of tranquility. This Court cannot sit on appeal over the decision of the authority which is alone competent to deal with the law and order situation in the State. Therefore, the direction sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. 15. In view of that, the impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 20.07.2013, is sustained and the same is passed with an intention to maintain the law and order problem and preserve communal harmony. 16. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs.