Judgment : 1. “MAHATMA GANDHI” is the only leader, who has not been given caste colour. It is very unfortunate, invariably, all other leaders, one way or other, are identified with the castes and religious. All these tall leaders are sought to be reduced as caste leaders, which, they would not have dreamt of during their life time. 2. In all thee writ petitions, the common issue is only with regard to celebrations connected to “Maamannar Poolithevan” “Thiyagi Immanuvel Sekaranar” and “Ondi Veeran”. 3. W.P.No. 13607 of 2013 is to forbear the respondents from preventing the members of the petitioners movement residing all over Ramanathapuram District, from hiring private vehicles to go to the place Ondiveeran-memorial in Tirunelveli District and consequently direct the respondents to grant permission and to provide police protection to participate in the said function on 20.8.2013. 4. W.P.No. 14198 of 2013 is to direct the respondents to provide adequate police protection, drinking water facilities, sanitary facilities to the people who come to Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District on 11.9.2013 from various parts of Tamil Nadu and provide parking lots to the vehicles including hires vehicles on which people come there for paying homage to their community leader Thiyagi Immanuvel Sekaranan at memorial place. 5. W.P.No. 14287/2013 is to direct the respondents to grant permission and adequate police protection for the celebration of 298th Birth Anniversary of “Maamannar Poolithevan” at Tirunelveli District on 1.9.2013 to be conducted by the petitioner. 6. The common thread in all the above writ petitions are seeking permission to hire vehicles and to travel respective memorials of their leaders and conduct meeting and for police protection. The petitioners contend that their respective leaders are freedom fighters and the celebrations are conducted by the people in recognition of their contribution to the society and therefore, they should be allowed to conduct the celebration with police protection. They also contend that various political party leaders, communal leaders and leaders of various organizations and general public would assemble there to pay homage to their respective leaders. This year only, the police is imposing restrictions not to hire vehicles to travel to the memorials/birth places and refuse to give permission for conducting meeting. Therefore, they are before this Court. 7. Heard Mr. T. Lajapathiraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.13607 of 2013 and Mr. This year only, the police is imposing restrictions not to hire vehicles to travel to the memorials/birth places and refuse to give permission for conducting meeting. Therefore, they are before this Court. 7. Heard Mr. T. Lajapathiraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.13607 of 2013 and Mr. W. Peter Rameshkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.Nos.14287 of 2013 and Mr. R. Murugappan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner in W.P.No. 14198 of 2013 and Mr. Aayiram K. Selvakumar learned Government Advocate for the respondents. Strictly speaking, W.P.No. 14287 of 2013 and W.P.No. 13607 of 2013 have become infructuous, as they sought permission for the respective functions on 20.8.2013 and 1.9.2013. In any event, considering the public interest, this court disposes of all these writ petitions together on merits. 8. It is disheartening to note that communal and castiest forces are raising their ugly heads often. This court is aware that southern part of Tamil Nadu is communally very sensitive. Any untoward incident would definitely create communal tension, law and order problem. Nowadays, year by year new leaders/heroes are discovered as caste leaders so as to enable them to conduct celebration in their names. These celebrations are terms as “gurupoojas”. It is being said that these occasions are being used by various persons of the same community to show their might to claim so as to get leadership of their community and also to exhibit their strength with a view to get supremacy of their community over and above the other communities. No doubt, the heroes and freedom fighters are required to be honoured, irrespective of their communities. However, in reality, it is said they are being honoured not for good caused but for communal cause only. 9. Through out Tamilnadu celebrations are conducted for the following leaders/heroes/ persons. 1) Poolithevan – Tirunelveli District. 2) Ondiveeran Veeran, Tirunelveli District. 3) V.O. Chidambaramnar – Tirunelveli District. 4) Veeran Alaghumuthu Kone – Tuticorin District. 5) Veeran Sundara Lingan, Tuticorin District 6) Kattabomman, Tuticorin District 7) Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar, Ramanathapuram District 8) Thiyagi Immanuvel Sekaranar, Ramanathapuram District. 9. Through out Tamilnadu celebrations are conducted for the following leaders/heroes/ persons. 1) Poolithevan – Tirunelveli District. 2) Ondiveeran Veeran, Tirunelveli District. 3) V.O. Chidambaramnar – Tirunelveli District. 4) Veeran Alaghumuthu Kone – Tuticorin District. 5) Veeran Sundara Lingan, Tuticorin District 6) Kattabomman, Tuticorin District 7) Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar, Ramanathapuram District 8) Thiyagi Immanuvel Sekaranar, Ramanathapuram District. 9) Velu Nachiyar – Sivagangai District 10) Maruthu Pandiyar – Sivagangai District 11) Muthurayar – Trichy District For the above leaders, either their birth anniversary or death anniversary or any other connected functions are conducted only treating them as communal leaders, and in fact those leaders/heroes/persons are sought to be reduced to a particular community leader and it may not be good tribute to those leaders/persons and it will be only insult to them. 10. During these celebrations, volunteers of communal outfits/organization/parties, travel in vehicles, in large numbers and cause a lot of disturbances, when the vehicles pass through the villages belonging to other communities. It has been categorically stated in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit filed in W.P.No. 14287 of 2013 that while passing through other community villages, volunteers and activists raised several objectionable, slogans, which provoke other communities and result in tensed atmosphere leading to untoward incidents. 11. Considering the past experience in Tirunvelveli District, administration promulgated prohibitory order under Section 144 Crl.P.C. on 19.8.2013. Moreover, restrictions have been imposed to hire vehicles and travel from other districts as per the proceedings of the District Collector, Tirunelveli dated 16.8.2013. It is contended by the respondents that only to control law and order problem, unlawful activities and to maintain peace and tranquility, restrictions have been imposed by the government. In the counter affidavit, in detail, it has been stated that volunteers/party cadres raise slogans to insult other communities loudly and paste wall papers without obtaining appropriate permission and a number of violent incidents occurred in the last three years. 12. This court considering the aforesaid violent incidents, sought for details of loss of livers, injuries to the public, damage to the properties, and the number of cases filed in those incidents, from the Director General of Police. The Inspector General of Police, South Zone gave the following details. 12. This court considering the aforesaid violent incidents, sought for details of loss of livers, injuries to the public, damage to the properties, and the number of cases filed in those incidents, from the Director General of Police. The Inspector General of Police, South Zone gave the following details. 2010 2011 2012 Killed --- 8 7 Injured 4 2 7 Attempt to murder 2 15 10 Number of cases filed 32 149 187 Loss of properties Rs.23,200/- Rs.1,79,35,670/- Rs.25,42,701/- The above details unequivocally would demonstrate that because of these celebrations, the arrival and assembly of people/volunteers create law and order problem leading to loss of precious lives, injuries to the people, damage to the properties and communal tension. Therefore, the respondents rightly imposed restrictions to avoid untoward incidents. The respondents alone are competent to assess the situation and take appropriate actions according to the ground realities. Therefore, this court cannot direct them to give permission contrary to the grand realities. Considering the above delicate situation, these celebrations have to be conducted in a peaceful manner and such occasions should not be made use or exploited by the persons claiming to be the leaders to cause disturbance to the public. 13. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners would rely upon judgment of a Division bench of this Court in W.P.No. 14084 of 2013 dated 27.8.2013 and W.A.No. 800 of 2013 dated 26.7.2013 and Home Secretary, Govt. of Tamil Nadu and others vs. Era Selvam and another reported in (2013) 3 MLJ 513 to contend that the right of citizen to conduct procession and public meeting cannot be curtailed, what is required to be seen is, the ground reality. The ground reality in the present case is exhibited by the counter affidavit filed by the respondents and the details given by the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, wherein it has been stated that about 15 people lost their lives in 2011 and 14 people died in 2012. Further as many as 32 cases in 2010 and 149 cases in 2011 and 187 cases in 2012 were filed. When the situation is volatile and law and order is problematic and risky, the respondents are justified in imposing restrictions and they cannot be directed to give permission and other prayer sought for in these writ petitions. 14. Further as many as 32 cases in 2010 and 149 cases in 2011 and 187 cases in 2012 were filed. When the situation is volatile and law and order is problematic and risky, the respondents are justified in imposing restrictions and they cannot be directed to give permission and other prayer sought for in these writ petitions. 14. A Division Bench of this Court in Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, and others vs. Era Selvam and another reported in (2013) 3 MLJ 513 gave permission to conduct procession and meeting. The very same Division Bench taking into consideration of law and order problem, subsequently declined to grant permission in W.P.No. 14415, 13685 and 14630 of 2013 on 30.8.2013. 15. The rights guaranteed under Article 19 are subject to reasonable restrictions. The rights stated in Article 19(1) is subject to what has been stated in Article 19(2) and it is not absolute. In this case also, the power vested on the state is to impose reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order. Assessing the prevailing situation, the respondents imposed conditions is in consonance with purpose mentioned in Article 19 (2) to (6) and therefore, the same cannot be said to be illegal. According the directions sought for cannot be granted. The restrictions imposed by the respondents by no stretch of imagination can be said to be violating the fundamental rights of the petitioners. 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in N.K. Bajpai vs. Union of India and another reported in 2012 (4) SCC 653 held that the court has to keep in mind that restrictions should be founded on principles of least invasiveness and take into consideration whether anticipated event would not be intrinsically dangerous public interest. Paras 11 & 12 read as follows: “11. Part III of the Constitution is the soul of the Constitution. It is not only a charter of the rights that are available to the Indian citizens, but is even completely in consonance with the basic norms of human rights, recognized and accepted all over the world. The fundamental rights are basic rights, but they are neither uncontrolled nor without restrictions. In fact, the Framers of the Indian Constitution themselves spelt out the nature of restriction on such rights. Exceptions apart, normally the restriction or power to regulate the manner of exercise of a right would not frustrate the right. 12. The fundamental rights are basic rights, but they are neither uncontrolled nor without restrictions. In fact, the Framers of the Indian Constitution themselves spelt out the nature of restriction on such rights. Exceptions apart, normally the restriction or power to regulate the manner of exercise of a right would not frustrate the right. 12. Take, for example, the most valuable right even form amongst the fundamental rights i.e. the right to freedom of speech and expression. This right is conferred by Article 19(1)(a) but in turn, the Constitution itself requires its regulation in the interest of “public order” under Article 19(2). The State could impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the rights conferred, in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. Such restrictions are within the scope of constitutionally permissible restrictions. The exercise of legislative power in this respect by the State can be subjected to judicial review, of course, within a limited ambit. Firstly, the challenger must show that the restriction imposed, at least prima facie, is violative of the fundament right. It is then that the burden lies upon the State to show that the restriction applied is by due process of law and is reasonable. If the restriction is not able to satisfy these tests or either of them, it will vitiate the law so enacted and the action taken in furtherance thereof is unconstitutional. It is difficult to anticipate the right to any freedom or liberty without any reasonable restriction. Besides this, the State has to function openly and in public interest. The width of the expression “public interest” cannot be restricted to a particular concept. It may relate to a variety of matters including administration of justice." The Hon’ble Supreme Court in James martin vs. State of Kerala reported in 2004 2 SCC 203 declared that in the name of Hartal, bandh or strike no person has any right to cause inconvenience to any other person or cause in any manner the threat or apprehension of risk to life, liberty and property of any citizen or destruction of life and property or public property. This case is squarely applicable to the present case, as the respondents categorically give reasons about loss of lives, injuries caused to the people, number of cases filed and destruction of property. While law enforcing agency gives the details about the apprehension regarding threat to life, liberty and property of any citizen, it should be viewed in all seriousness. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and another vs. Dr. Praveen Bhai Togadia reported in (2004) 4 SCC 684 = 2004 SCC(Crl) 1387 held in paragraph 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 expectation of possible turn of events, which may need to be avoided in public interest and maintenance of law and order.” In the above case also prohibitory order imposed under Section 144 Cr.P.C. to prohibit religious meeting at communal sensitive area, where several communal clashes resulted in several deaths and damage caused to public and private, was challenged. Similar situation exists in this case also. 17. This court, while dealing with a petition seeking permission to celebrate birth day of Poolithevan declined to give permission in S.Raja maravan @ Manickavasakam vs. The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District and another reported in 2013 (1) CTC 314 and held 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 and that permission was refused with the object to maintenance of law and order or prevention of acts leading to disorder or disturbance of tranquility and that 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. 18. Assembling of people in a surcharged situation would create law and order problem. 18. Assembling of people in a surcharged situation would create law and order problem. Even small incident may explode as a big problem and in that event police is being unnecessarily criticised for their actions and they are made as scapegoats. Therefore, the petitioner in W.P.No. 14198/2013 cannot seek to travel in vehicles and ask for other amenities as prayed for. 19. These writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently the connected M.P.Nos. 1,1,1, of 2013 are also dismissed. 20. This kind of celebrations are of recent origin. It is said they are conducted usually only to show their strength among the various other groups, or to exhibit supremacy over other communities. It is said that these celebrations invariably are undertaken by a group of leaders and the so-called community leaders. Naturally the political leaders will Que up before memorials for the sack of political gains. When the political leaders make their visits, unnecessary publicity and importance are being given to those celebrations. Therefore, in the interest of public, this court expects the political leaders not to visit these memorials of leaders/heroes/persons during celebrations and that itself is a greater service to the society. 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dwarkanath vs. FTO reported in 1965 (3) SCR 536 categorically declared that Article 226 is couched in comprehensive phraseology and it ex-facie confers wide power on the High Courts to reach injustice whenever it is found. Further it was held that Article 226 enables the High Courts to mould the reliefs to meet the peculiar and complicated requirements of this country. Therefore, in the public interest, considering the sensitive situation prevailing due to celebration of gurupoojas, this court has to give certain directions. Due to these celebrations, public is put to untold hardship and irreparable loss is caused due to these celebrations. Therefore, rights of the public are to be safeguarded and necessary and appropriate actions are required to be done by the respondents. It is well settled law that private interest must yield to larger public interest. Hence the following guidelines are given to be followed by the respondents: (i) The respondents have to seriously consider the banning of celebrations of gurupoojas or atleast these poojas should be reduced to low key affairs (ii) Visits of political leaders and communal leaders have to be banned during these gurupoojas. Hence the following guidelines are given to be followed by the respondents: (i) The respondents have to seriously consider the banning of celebrations of gurupoojas or atleast these poojas should be reduced to low key affairs (ii) Visits of political leaders and communal leaders have to be banned during these gurupoojas. (iii) Media should avoid giving undue publicity to these celebrations, as communal and casties groups are benefited by the publicity. (iv) Hate speeches, objectionable slogans, provocative speeches of the community leaders have to be strictly prohibited. (v) Particular month of celebrations have to be strictly banned. (vi) Carrying banners, pasting of posters, painting of walls for the gurupoojas have to be banned. (vii) Preparatory meetings for the celebrations of these gurupoojas have to be prohibited. (viii) Processions or assembly of more persons have to be prevented/regulated as there will be likelihood of law and order problem. (ix) Hiring of vehicles for the celebrations as done during this year, should be continuously prohibited in the coming years also. (x) Peace Committee meetings have to be conducted and various political leaders, social workers, NGOs have to be roped in, to create a normal and cordial relationship among the various communities in the disturbed areas. 22. Before parting with this judgment, this court has to state that if the so-called community leaders or political leaders want to felicitate/honour their great leaders/ heroes/persons, the political leaders as well as cadres, so-called community leaders etc., can do the same, without visiting the memorials. They can do social service by feeding the poor, helping the orphanages/old age homes, distributing scholarships to needy poor students irrespective of community, constructing schools etc. The money spent for their travelling to the memorials can also be used for the above said purposes. The workers and cadres can be usefully used for the aforesaid constructive works. The above acts will be befitting tributes to the memories of great leaders/heroes/persons, for whom the petitioners and others want to honour. Considering loss of lives, damage to property during the celebrations, every one should remember that “In an attempt to honour yesteryear heroes, today’s ordinary man should not be disturbed, injured or harassed.”