Judgment 1. "Enough is enough". What has been suffered by the people of Tamil Nadu is too much in the name of 'gurupoojas'. Tamil Nadu cannot afford to have any more "gurupooja". This case has all the ingredients of "gurupooja" or potential of 'gurupooja'. If more and more celebrations are in the offing, it will definitely affect peace and tranquility of the State. Hence, these attempts have to be nipped in the bud itself with iron hand. 2. The petitioner, who is the eldest son of the deceased Khadar Batcha @ Vellaisamy, has come up with this petition, challenging the order passed by the third respondent, whereby the third respondent imposed certain conditions for the observance of second death anniversary of his father on 31.08.2014 and seeking a consequential direction to the respondents to grant permission and afford protection for observance of the second death anniversary function of deceased Khadar Batcha @ Vellaisamy in the Manimandapam at Melaramanathi Village on 31.08.2014 by the family members, friends and relatives, irrespective of their caste, creed, religion and political party which they belong to. 3. According to the petitioner, his father Khadar Batcha @ Vellaisamy, was a member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly from 1971 to 1976 and 1988 to 1989. He contributed for the development of the locality and helped people irrespective of their caste, creed and religion. He was a well known leader in that area and he fought for common cause and he was a follower of Late.Muthuramalinga Thevar. 4. The petitioner's father was murdered on 31.08.2012 in his residence and the funeral was attended by more than 5000 people. The first anniversary was conducted after obtaining necessary permission from the Police authorities in the year 2013 and about 3000 people participated and remembered the departed soul for his social services, and nearly about 1000 people were fed. 5. The petitioner and his family members want to conduct the second anniversary, this year in a large scale at the Manimandapam constructed at Melaramanathi village in the memory of deceased Khadar Batcha @ Vellaisamy. On 13.08.2014 the petitioner presented an application to the second respondent seeking permission to celebrate the anniversary on 31.08.2014. However, only on 26.08.2014, the impugned order was served upon the petitioner, granting permission with a restriction that no other outsider of the village should attend. The said order is being challenged before this Court. 6. On 13.08.2014 the petitioner presented an application to the second respondent seeking permission to celebrate the anniversary on 31.08.2014. However, only on 26.08.2014, the impugned order was served upon the petitioner, granting permission with a restriction that no other outsider of the village should attend. The said order is being challenged before this Court. 6. Mr.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner's father was a social worker and he was a revered leader; Therefore, there should not be any problem in permitting the outsiders to participate in the celebration; The third respondent is not justified in restricting the celebration only to close relatives and the natives of the village alone. Moreover, he would find fault with the reason given by the third respondent that the petitioner's father belonged to Thevar Community and there would be a problem during the celebration by the Adi-Dravidar people, who are residing in that area; By making such statement, a communal colour as well as a political colour are sought to be given by the respondent Police; Refusal of the permission by the third respondent is unknown to law and that too, at the last minute; Elaborate arrangements had been made to conduct the anniversary. Therefore, he sought to quash the order. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in P.Nedumaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and 3 others, reported in 1999 (1) L.W. (Crl.) 73, to contend that the power to impose restrictions is not the power which is available to exercise in an arbitrary manner or for the purpose of promoting the interest of those in power, or for suppressing the dissent. 8. On the other hand, Mr.Kandasamy, learned Government Advocate would submit that there would be a law and order problem and if more people gather during the anniversary, the police may not be in a position to control the crowd and there would likelihood of breach of peace. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, who appeared in person before this Court, stated that Kamuthi area is a very sensitive area and he witnessed communal tension even in the past. Only to avoid the law and order problem, the impugned order has been passed. 9. Heard the parties and perused the records. 10. It is known that Southern Districts in Tamil Nadu are communally very sensitive. Only to avoid the law and order problem, the impugned order has been passed. 9. Heard the parties and perused the records. 10. It is known that Southern Districts in Tamil Nadu are communally very sensitive. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate as well as by the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Kamuthi area is very sensitive as seen from the past events that took place. Anniversary celebration of the death anniversary of the petitioner's father not banned, it is only restricted. The police only imposed conditions that the celebration could be attended by the family members, close relatives and those who are hailing from the said village. Sensing communal tension only, the above conditions had been imposed. 11. Paragraph Nos. 2 & 3 of the impugned order, dated 25.08.2014, read as follows; “TAMIL” The law enforcing agency, after taking into consideration the ground realities, imposed restrictions, with regard to the celebration, in the interest of the public. This Court cannot very lightly interfere with such a decision. The law enforcing agency is the appropriate authority can weigh the ground realities and take appropriate decision according to the requirements. There are certain reasons given in the impugned order and the same cannot be ignored. When the Police is of the opinion that if the celebration is conducted in a large scale more people would assemble, which would result in breach of public peace. If such an unpleasant circumstance is foreseen by the police this Court cannot reappreciate the situation contrary to the reality and interfere with the impugned order invoking Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 12. It is not as if the anniversary function itself is banned and it is only directed to be celebrated in a peaceful manner with the participation of close relatives and the villagers. The impugned order only prevents the outsiders, other organisations and parties to participate in the function. The order very clearly states that if other people, other organisations and outsiders are allowed to participate, the situation would go out of control. Therefore, the third respondent Police rightly passed the impugned order imposing restrictions. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be found fault with. 13. The order very clearly states that if other people, other organisations and outsiders are allowed to participate, the situation would go out of control. Therefore, the third respondent Police rightly passed the impugned order imposing restrictions. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be found fault with. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner justified in stating that even though the petition was filed on 13.08.2014, the third respondent Police took long time to pass orders only on 25.08.2014 and it was served on 26.08.2014, especially, when the celebration was on 31.08.2014. This Court hopes that, in future, this kind of delay would not be repeated by the authorities. As soon as the representation is given, at the earliest, it should be disposed of. 14. As far as the judgment of this Court in P.Nedumaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 1999 (1) L.W. (Crl.) 73 is concerned, it is seen that in that case, the challenge was with regard to the rejection of permission to hold a conference in Thamukkam ground. This Court, while allowing the writ petition, in paragraph No.15 held as follows; "15. The rights conferred on the citizens by Article 19 of the Constitution are precious rights and are not to be lightly breached or restricted by the State or any functionary of the State. Any regulation of exercise of those rights must be for the purposes specified in Article 19 of the Constitution itself, and that power must be so exercised as to subserve the larger public good. The power to impose restrictions is not the power which is available for exercise in an arbitrary manner or for the purpose of promoting the interest of those in power, or for suppressing dissent. Democracy can be made dynamic and truly alive only when there is free market for ideas and discussion and debate is not only permitted but is encouraged. All expression of opposing view point cannot be regarded as dangerous to the safety or security of the country and all expressions which do not find the approval of those exercising the power of the State cannot be regarded as harmful to the State and to the public order." There is no quarrel with regard to the above judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In that case, a blanket order of refusal was passed and therefore, the order was quashed. In that case, a blanket order of refusal was passed and therefore, the order was quashed. Here, in this case, there is no blanket refusal. It only restricts the participation of the other oragnisations and outsiders. Therefore, the said judgment is not applicable. 15. This Court in S.Sivakumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and five others, reported in 2013 (5) CTC 695 , elaborately dealt with the power of the Police to restrict and regulate the participants and gave guidelines to be followed in paragraph 21, which is extracted as follows; "(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) Public meetings and address by the communal leaders during the 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." In the above case, this Court followed a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in James Martin Vs. State of Kerala, reported in 2004 (2) SCC 203 wherein it is 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 threat or apprehension of risk to life, liberty and property of any citizen or destruction of life and property or public property. The said judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Similarly, this Court followed the judgments in N.K.Bajpai Vs. The said judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Similarly, this Court followed the judgments in N.K.Bajpai Vs. Union of India and another, reported in 2012(4) SCC 153 and in State of Karnataka and another Vs. Dr.Parveen Bhai Togadia, reported in (2004) 4 SCC 684 . 16. Mr.Ramesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the daughters and other grand children, who are residing outside of the village, would not be allowed by virtue of this order. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to give the list of close relatives with their addresses, so that, the respondents Police could verify and allow them to participate. Merely because this Court permitted the close relatives of the petitioner who are residing outside the village, it does not mean that the petitioner can give a long list. The list should not contain more than 50 names. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to give list which shall not exceed 50 persons. On receiving such list, the respondents are directed to verify and allow them to participate. 17. When there is an apprehension of law and order problem and loss of life, based on the past events and a restriction has been imposed, the same cannot be interfered with. Therefore, the impugned order is sustained. The relief sought for by the petitioner is denied. However, in the interest of public, the petition is kept pending for getting response from the Government regarding certain queries and for passing final orders. 18. This kind of celebrations are often conducted in Southern Districts, which have been elaborately dealt with by this Court in paragraph No.12 of the judgment in S.Sivakumar vs. Sate of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 2013(5) CTC 695 , that as many as 11 leaders' gurupoojas are conducted and during those celebrations, many people were killed, injured. Therefore, this Court gave many suggestions as guidelines to be followed. 19. Celebrations of 'gurupoojas' have become controversial now-a-days and hence, the State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Home Secretary, Secretariat, Chennai and the Director General of Police, Chennai are suo motu impleaded as respondents 4 & 5. Mr.Kandasamy, learned Government Advocate took notice on behalf of them. 20. In the above circumstances, this Court would like to know from the respondents the following; (a) whether the guidelines given by this Court in paragraph 21 in Sivakumar Vs. Mr.Kandasamy, learned Government Advocate took notice on behalf of them. 20. In the above circumstances, this Court would like to know from the respondents the following; (a) whether the guidelines given by this Court in paragraph 21 in Sivakumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, reported in 2013(5) CTC 695 are being followed by the Government while celebration of gurupoojas? (b) Whether the Government faced any problems during various 'gurupooja' celebrations in 2013; (c) Whether the Government is finding out and taking steps to prevent the celebrations which have potential of becoming 'gurupoojas' later? (d) Why not the Government hereafterwards avoid giving official recognition to any new 'gurupooja'; and (e) What are all other steps taken by the Government in this regard? 24. In the interest of public, the newly impleaded parties are directed to give their answers on or before 11.09.2014." The above order is passed by this Court on 28.08.2014. Pursuant to the queries made by this Court, the fifth respondent gave answers the following:- "23(a) Whether the guidelines given by this Court in para 21 in Sivakumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, reported in 2013(5) CTC 695 are being followed by the Government while cerebration of gurupoojas? Ans: The guidelines given by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras at Madurai Bench in Sivakumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 2013(5) CTC 695 are sincerely followed in connection with Gurupooja and similar function. Due to such instructions (as per the guidelines of this Hon'ble Court) like banning of hired vehicles, pasting of posters, erecting banners, etc., law and order problems were avoided. Similarly restrictions were imposed on the volunteers participating in the death anniversary of Ondiveeran (Tirunelveli District), Mookiah Thevar (Madurai District), Marudhu Pandiar brothers (Sivagangai District), Veeran Azhagumuthukon (Thoothukudi District) and as a result law and order problems were averted. Hence, by following such guidelines issued by this Hon'ble Court law and order problems were fully averted in the year from 2012 to 2014. It is, however, not feasible at present to ban such events altogether. 23(b) whether the Government faced any problem during various 'gurupooja' celebrations in 2013? Hence, by following such guidelines issued by this Hon'ble Court law and order problems were fully averted in the year from 2012 to 2014. It is, however, not feasible at present to ban such events altogether. 23(b) whether the Government faced any problem during various 'gurupooja' celebrations in 2013? Ans: There was no law and order problem or communal incident anywhere during the celebration of Gurupooja in 2013 due to the enforcement of the restrictions imposed by the district administration like restriction of hired vehicles by the participants, banning of jothi runs (torch run), banning processions/public meeting etc., by promulgating order under 144 Cr.P.C. during the said two events in 2013. However, there were some violations in some parts like use of convoy of more than there vehicles by the community leaders, attempt to go on fast in procession protesting against refusal of permission to use private transport vehicles. Case were registered for such violation. Similarly no major law and order problem occurred during Ondiveeran Gurupooja in Tirunelveli District and Marudhupandiyar Gurupooja in Sivagangai District. There were demands from people in certain areas to arrange more public transport vehicles for carrying volunteers to the venues. The district administration made arrangements to the extent possible. In some instances, there were attempt to use taxis by using false number plates to make them appear to be privately owned vehicles. By joint checks by police and Transport department, these attempts were foiled. Because of the strict measures, disruption of normal life, as used to be witnessed in previous years, was absent. Closure of shops in anticipation of violence was avoided. Some persons attempted to play upon caste sentiments to mobilize opposition to the restrictions. However, the administration was able to carry conviction that there was no intention to thwart observance of any legitimate event and that minimum restrictions, applicable irrespective of caste or creed, had to be introduced in the interest of peace and harmony. 23(c) Whether the Government is finding out and taking steps to prevent the celebrations which have potential of becoming 'gurupoojas' later? Ans: The death anniversary of Ganesapandian, a communal leader has been reduced to minimum level in Sikkal on 9/8/2013 by banning the use of hired vehicle and jothi run (torch run) for the event. 23(c) Whether the Government is finding out and taking steps to prevent the celebrations which have potential of becoming 'gurupoojas' later? Ans: The death anniversary of Ganesapandian, a communal leader has been reduced to minimum level in Sikkal on 9/8/2013 by banning the use of hired vehicle and jothi run (torch run) for the event. The participants for the event came down from 459 in 2012 to 239 in 2013 and to 166 in 2014 and the number of vehicles used came down from 40 in 2012 to 13 in 2013 and to only 07 in 2014. "Ivar Dhinam" is observed on September 14th in commemoration of the death of 5 persons belonging to Thevar community in Keelathooval. During 2013, entry of outsiders for the event was banned and only the local villagers of Keelathooval were allowed to observe Ivar Dhinam by the District Administration. An attempt to enter and take part in the event by some outsiders was prevented by the police intervention and a case Cr.No.93/13 u/s 147, 188, 353 r/w 149 IPC, was registered in Abiramam P.S. In this connection 13 persons were secured along with their vehicles in the criminal case. During the current year also, the death anniversary of Kathar Batcha was restricted to the family members, relatives and the local villages of Melaramanathi village by the district police. 23(d)Why not the Government here afterwards avoid giving official recognition to any new 'gurupooja'? Ans: No new gurupooja is in the offing. Hence, the question of official recognition for any new gurupooja does not arise. 23(e) What are all other steps taken by the Government in this regard? Ans: Heavy Police deployment is made to maintain law and order during these events. Peace committee meetings are held in advance. Careful watch is maintained for any provocative speeches or wall writings Legal action is taken when any such instance comes to light. Apart from patrols and check-posts, police also deploy an unmanned aerial vehicle for additional surveillance. Police dog squads, water cannons, vajra and other resources have also been pressed into service as an when required." II. It is heartening to note that by following the directions of this Court, there is no loss of life, damage and public peace during gurupoojas or other celebrations. III. Police dog squads, water cannons, vajra and other resources have also been pressed into service as an when required." II. It is heartening to note that by following the directions of this Court, there is no loss of life, damage and public peace during gurupoojas or other celebrations. III. For query (a), the Government has answered that guidelines by this Court in S.Sivakumar vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 2013(5) CTC 695 are being followed. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the respondents to continue to follow the above guidelines without fail here-afterwards, in connection with all 'gurupoojas' and similar functions, to avoid untoward incidents, loss of life and to maintain public peace and tranquility. IV. Though it is stated no new 'gurupoojas' is in the offing, for the queries No.3 itself, the fifth respondent stated about certain celebrations. Moreover, the present case also has got all the qualities/ ingredients of gurupoojas. Therefore, the Government should be very strict in allowing any celebration which has potential of becoming full-fledged 'gurupoojas', as such celebrations are not in the interest of the society. Therefore, the Government is hereby directed to be careful while recognizing any new 'gurupoojas', otherwise, there will be a scramble for official recognition. V. Since liquor is main cause for many problems generally and even during celebration, all the TASMAC shops in the surrounding areas, where the gurupooja are celebrated shall be closed down at least two days before and after the celebrations. VI. As stated in 2013(5) CTC 695 , (stated supra) the visit of the political leaders adds more publicity importance and recognition to 'gurupoojas'. Therefore, in the interest of the People, this Court reiterates that the Political Leaders should avoid visiting the places of 'gurupoojas'. They must remember that Political Parties are only for doing service to the People. In the interest of Public at large, this Court expects the Political Leaders to raise above the political consideration and avoid visiting of such places. 6. Denying the directions sought for by the petitioner, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with the above observations.