Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3994 (MAD)

O. Ravi v. Inspector of Police

2014-10-28

M.VENUGOPAL

body2014
JUDGMENT M. VENUGOPAL, J. 1. According to the Petitioner, he is now working as a Professor in the Aided College, Usilampatti and after his retirement, he wants to settle at Usilampatti, wherein he had constructed a new house. He wanted to conduct House Warming Ceremony and also his Daughter's betrothal on 30/10/2014 in his Village. As such, when he is planning for the said functions, it is the case of the Petitioner that a request was made from the villagers to have Adal Padal on the said occasion and since they are poor and illiterate, the village people, till today not enjoyed the said event. As such, instead of providing any Light Music Programme it was decided to conduct Adal Padal Programme on 30/10/2014. 2. The Petitioner submitted an application by means of a representation dated 24/10/2014 to the Second Respondent and the same was forwarded to the First Respondent by the Second Respondent. It appears that the First Respondent/Inspector of Police, Shekkanoorani Circle, Madurai District had rejected his request through the impugned order dated 24/10/2014, citing the date on which remembrance would be conducted for one of the Community Leaders. Therefore, the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition for Mandamus in question before this Court. 3. Per contra, the Learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents submits that the First Respondent/Inspector of Police, Shekkanoorani Circle, Madurai District had rejected the petition of the Petitioner dated 24/10/2014 through an order dated 24/10/2014 on the ground that on 30/10/2014, Guru Pooja Event was scheduled to take place and on that day, the Police Department people would be in security job and in view of the fact that the Petitioner had sought permission to conduct Adal Padal Event at the drama dais, there is a possibility of cropping up of Law & Order problem. 4. On going through the impugned order passed by the First Respondent dated 24/10/2014, wherein the First Respondent had rejected the permission sought for by the Petitioner for the conduct of Adal Padal Programme on 30/10/2014, this Court is of the considered view that the First Respondent had rejected the request of the Petitioner mainly based on the reason that the Police Department people would be engaged in security duty/job on 30/10/2014 etc. The said reason assigned by the First Respondent, in the considered opinion of this Court cannot be found fault with. 5. The said reason assigned by the First Respondent, in the considered opinion of this Court cannot be found fault with. 5. Be that as it may, at this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner informs this Court that the Petitioner is ready and willing to conduct Adal Padal Programme in the village on 31/10/2014 between 07.00 p.m. and 10.00 p.m. and as such, the request of the Petitioner in this regard may kindly be considered by this Court. 6. It is to be noted that that the commission of an act under the Indian Penal Code is punishable as an offence. Similarly, the act done contrary to the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986, then the same becomes an offence. In reality, one cannot assume or presume of any illegal act/any illegality even before the grant of license for the conduct of Adal Padal programme at Chellampatti Village of the Petitioner to be held on 31/10/2014. 7. It cannot be gainsaid that Section 2(c) of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986, defines – "Indecent representation of women means the depiction in any manner of the figure of a woman, her form or body or any part thereof in such a way as to have the effect of being indecent, or derogatory to, or denigrating, women, or is likely to deprave, corrupt or injure the public morality or morals." 8. As a matter of fact, Section 3 of the Act, 1986 refers to Prohibition of advertisements containing indecent representation of woman. Also that Section 4 of the Act enjoins Prohibition of Publication or Sending by post of books, pamphlets, etc. containing indecent representation of women. 9. In this connection, this Court very significantly points out that there must be a subsisting right enforceable in a Court of Law on an individual and there must be a corresponding duty for issuance of Writ of Mandamus. An aggrieved person must have a legal right and he must aver that there is an infringement of public duty. 9. In this connection, this Court very significantly points out that there must be a subsisting right enforceable in a Court of Law on an individual and there must be a corresponding duty for issuance of Writ of Mandamus. An aggrieved person must have a legal right and he must aver that there is an infringement of public duty. At this stage, this Court worth recalls and recollects the decision of the Director of Settlements, A.P and other vs. M.R. Apparao and another, (2002) 4 Supreme Court Cases 638, wherein it is held that the powers of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India though a discretionary one and no limits can be placed upon their discretion, they must be exercised along with recognised lines and subject to certain self-imposed limitations. 10. Apart from the above, on behalf of the Petitioner, no Statute or Enactment is cited or relied upon which confers a right upon the Petitioner to conduct/hold Adal Padal programme. 11. One cannot brush aside an important fact that India is a signatory to the Convention of Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the same is adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in the year 1979. Further, Article 6 of the Convention enjoins that the state parties to take appropriate steps to suppress all forms of trafficking and exploitation of women. 12. Also, that Section 3 of the (Tamil Nadu) Dramatic Performance Act, 1954 (which came into force on 12/1/1955) speaks of Power of the State Government to prohibit objectionable performances. Section 4 of the Act, 1954 also deals about the Power of the Commissioner of Police in the Presidency Town or the District elsewhere to prohibit objectionable performances temporarily. Section 5 of the Act mentions about the Service of order of Prohibition. In fact, Section 6 of the Act, 1954 deals about the penalty for disobeying the order referred to in Sections 3 and 4 and the same being served on the person concerned. 13. It is true that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution speaks of free speech and expression, but the same is subject to restrictions under Article 19 (ii), in the considered opinion of this Court. 13. It is true that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution speaks of free speech and expression, but the same is subject to restrictions under Article 19 (ii), in the considered opinion of this Court. Also that a Script or Play or Drama will be considered as an objectionable one only when it falls within any of six sub-clauses mentioned in Section 2 (i) of the Tamil Nadu Dramatic Performance Act, 1954. The provisions of the Tamil Nadu Dramatic Performance Act, 1954 would certainly fall well within the bounds of Article 19 of the Constitution of India, as opined by this Court. 14. Undoubtedly, the right to freedom of speech and expression is a valuable and cherished the right possessed by a Citizen of our Country. It is always open to the State Government to impose/make such reasonable restrictions which are permissible as envisaged under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India. 15. Added further, no person can be deprived by his fundamental rights. The State by its legislative power is entitled to regulate the fundamental rights by imposing reasonable restrictions. However, the said restrictions must be related to Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India. Each restriction must be a reasonable one. The restriction to be imposed can only be within the authority of Law. A restriction cannot be exercised merely by an executive power without any Law to back it. In this connection, this Court pertinently points out the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Superintendent, Central Prison, Fatehgarh and another vs. Dr. Raam Manohar Lohia, AIR 1960 Supreme Court Cases 633 (V 47 C 100), whereby and whereunder, it is observed and held as under:- "Concept of public order in India before the amendment of Article 19 by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act 1951, in America and in England compared, AIR 1950 SC 124 and air 1950 SC 129 and AIR 1952 SC 329 and (1940) 310 US 296, Ref. By the amendment of Article 19(2) by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 the wide concept of public order is split up under different heads. All the grounds mentioned in clause (2) can be brought under the general head public order in its most comprehensive sense. But the juxtaposition of the different grounds indicates that though sometimes they tend to overlap, they must be ordinarily intended to exclude each other. All the grounds mentioned in clause (2) can be brought under the general head public order in its most comprehensive sense. But the juxtaposition of the different grounds indicates that though sometimes they tend to overlap, they must be ordinarily intended to exclude each other. 'Public order' is, therefore, something which is demarcated from the others. In that limited sense, particularly in view of public order is synonymous with public peace, safety and tranquillity. It is the absence of disorder involving breaches of local significance in contradistinction to national upheavals, such as revolution, civil strife and war, affecting the security of the State. The distinction between the phrases in the interest of public order and for the maintenance of public order, does not ignore the necessity for intimate connection between the Act and the public order sought to be maintained by the Act (S) AIR 1957 SC 896 , expl. (S) AIR 1957 SC 620 Ref. The limitation that the restrictions shall be reasonable, brings about the same result. In order to be reasonable, the limitation must have a proximate connection with public order and not one far-fetched, hypothetical, problematical or too remote. AIR 1950 FC 67, Ref. and applied." 16. In view of the fact that the Petitioner is desirous of conducting the Adal Padal programme on 31/10/2014, this Court grants him permission to conduct the said programme at Gandhi Nagar, Chellampatti Village on 31/10/2014 between 7.00 p.m. and 10.00 p.m. subject to the following conditions:- (i) The Adal Padal Programme should be conducted by the Petitioner in an organised and peaceful atmosphere without causing any Law & Order problem. (ii) The Petitioner is directed to file an affidavit before the First Respondent/The Inspector of Police, Shekkanoorani Circle, Madurai District to the effect that there will not be any obscene or vulgar dance during the performance by any one of the participants or others. (iii) The Petitioner is permitted only to use box type loud speaker (and not cone type loud speaker) with 80 decibels sound. (iv) The Petitioner is to provide adequate parking facility/place for parking of vehicles/ two wheelers/four wheelers/bicycles/vehicles for the visitors of the programme, who come to witness the programme in question. (v) The Petitioner is directed to provide adequate light and sound facilities for the programme in question. (iv) The Petitioner is to provide adequate parking facility/place for parking of vehicles/ two wheelers/four wheelers/bicycles/vehicles for the visitors of the programme, who come to witness the programme in question. (v) The Petitioner is directed to provide adequate light and sound facilities for the programme in question. (vi) In case, if the scheduled programme is to be conducted at an inside auditorium, strictly, the Petitioner is to make provision for two exits. (vii) The Petitioner is to provide separate sitting place for men/women/children to view the programme in question. (viii) The Petitioner/Organising Member is directed to apply for necessary licence by means of writing addressed to the First Respondent/Inspector of Police, Shekkanoorani Circle, Madurai District is to accord necessary permission to the Petitioner to conduct the Adal Padal programme in question on 31/10/2014 scheduled between 07.00 p.m. and 10.00 p.m. of course by imposing necessary conditions/restrictions. (ix) The Petitioner/Oraganising Committee Member is to remit the necessary money before the Government Treasury under the proper head of account for providing Police Bando-bust and the receipts thereof should be produced before the First Respondent/ Inspector of Police, Shekkanoorani Circle, Madurai District, prior to the commencement of the programme. (x) The Petitioner is to record the entire Adal Padal programme if any through video form and to handover a copy of the video to the First Respondent Police. (xi) It is made quite clear that in this scheduled programme which is to take place on 31/10/2014 between 07.00 p.m. and 10.00 p.m. at the Petitioner's village, if any problem/ problems crop up, then, the Petitioner/Organisers is/are to own full responsibility. (xii) If the Petitioner/any organising Committee Member violates/violate any one of the conditions as aforesaid, then the First Respondent/Inspector of Police, Shekkanoorani Circle, Madurai District, is to take necessary action in the manner known to law and in accordance with Law (including the one under the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986, (60 of 1986) and to put an end to the said programme. (xiii) More importantly and pertinently, if the Programme/programmes exceeds/exceed the time limit determined by this Court between 07.00 and 10.00. p.m. on 31/10/2014 evening, then the First Respondent/Police without any haziness/hesitation whatsoever is directed to step in immediately and stop the Adal Padal programme/cultural/dance/drama programme. 17. With the aforesaid directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.