Judgment 1. The local Office-bearers of the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh, of the areas of Chennai, Mannargudi, Tuticorin, Karur, Coimbatore and Kanyakumari, have come up with the above writ petitions, either seeking a mandamus to direct the Respondents to grant permission to them to conduct a peaceful procession in their respective areas on the occasion of their Founder's Day viz., 09.11.2014 and to hold a public meeting thereafter or seeking to set aside the orders of partial or total rejection of such requests. 2. I have heard Mr.T.V.Ramanujun, learned Senior Counsel, Mr.S.Prabhakaran, Mr.N.Chandrasekaran and Mr.B.Rabu Manohar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.AL.Somayaji, learned Advocate General, assisted by Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi, learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents. 3. As stated earlier, the petitioners in these writ petitions are the members of an organisation known as Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh. According to them, the organisation wanted to hold a peaceful march to celebrate the Founder's Day on 09.11.2014, to be followed by a public meeting. The petitioners made representations to the Commissioners of Police, or the District Superintendents of Police, as the case may be, seeking permission to organise a procession and to conduct a meeting. In one or two cases, no orders have been passed on the applications. In a majority of the cases, the applications have been rejected. At least in one case, the application has been partially allowed, permitting the petitioners to hold a public meeting but not to organise the procession. The grounds on which the Respondents have rejected the request of the petitioners, are just the same in all cases and hence it is easy to dispose of all cases together. 4. At least in one case, the application has been partially allowed, permitting the petitioners to hold a public meeting but not to organise the procession. The grounds on which the Respondents have rejected the request of the petitioners, are just the same in all cases and hence it is easy to dispose of all cases together. 4. The stand taken by the Respondents in brief, for rejecting the request of the petitioners, is as follows:- (i) that in view of the amendment to Section 41A of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888, made under Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 34 of 2012, the Commissioner has the power to prohibit the holding of any drill, training or assembly with arms; (ii) that a prohibitory order in terms of Section 41A has already been issued by the Commissioner; (iii) that the State Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 54A of the Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1859, has already extended the provisions of Section 41A of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888 to the other areas of the State; (iv) that under Section 30(2) of the Police Act, 1861, the District Superintendents of Police have the power to regulate public assemblies and processions; (v) that the State Government has received inputs from various intelligence agencies of the State and the Centre that terrorists outfits are likely to engage in disruptive activities; and (vi) that the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh volunteers wear an uniform resembling that of a police force and also carry lathis, which come within the meaning of the expression "arms" under Section 41A and that therefore, the permission sought for could not be granted. 5. Since the sheet anchor of the case of the Respondents revolves around Section 41A of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888, the same is extracted as follows:- "41-A. Power to prohibit drill training or assembly:-(1) (a) The Commissioner may, whenever he considers it necessary so to do for the preservation of the public peace or public safety or for the maintenance of public order, by order in writing, prohibit the holding of, or taking part in, any drill training or assembly with arms or in uniform resembling that of armed forces of the Union or Police force whether in a public or private place. (b) The Commissioner may, whenever he considers it necessary so to do for the preservation of the public peace or public safety or for the maintenance of public order, by order in writing, prohibit:- (i) the use of gestures or mimetic representations or playing of tapes or gramophone records or other instruments in which speeches or songs are recorded, or (ii) the preparation, exhibition or dissemination of pictures, symbols, placards, signs, visible representations or any other object or thing, which may, in the opinion of the Commissioner, offend against decency or morality, or promote on ground of religion, race, place or birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony, feelings of enmity or hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities. (2) No prohibition under this section shall remain in force for more than three months: Provided that if the State Government consider it necessary so to do for the preservation of the public peace or public safety or for the maintenance of public order, they may, by notification, direct that the order issued under subsection (1) shall remain in force for such further period not exceeding six months from the date on which such order would have, but for such notification, expired, as they may specify in the said notification. (3) Whoever contravenes any prohibition made under this section shall, on conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees. (4) Nothing contained in clause (a) of sub-section (1) shall apply to:- (i) the holding of, or taking part in, any drill with arms or training with arms held by the -- (a) members of Home Guards; (b) members of Bharat Scouts and Guides in their capacity as such members; (c) Police personnel; (d) Fire Service personnel; (e) Jail Service personnel; (f) members of the Armed Forces of the Union including the National Cadet Corps; or (ii) the doing of any physical exercise other than drill, training or assembly, with arms or in uniform resembling that of Armed Forces of the Union or Police-force. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, if the State Government are satisfied that it is necessary or expedient in the public interest so to do, they may, by notification, exempt, subject to such conditions as they deem fit, any person or class of persons from the provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of this section. Explanation:- For the purpose of this Section:- (a) the word ' assembly' includes any assembly which is open to the public or to any class or portion of the public; (b) the word ' arms' means any type of offensive weapon and includes lathi and stick." 6. Section 54A of the Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1859, enables the State Government to extend, by Notification in the Official Gazette, any of the provisions of the Chennai City Police Act to other areas. Section 54A reads as follows:- "54-A. Power of State Government to extend certain provisions of Tamil Nadu Act III of 1888 to any town- (1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, extend to any town or any other local area in the State all or any of the provisions of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888 (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1888), mentioned in the Schedule and may declare such extension to be subject to such modifications as they think fit. (2) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, cancel or modify any such notification as is referred to in sub-section(1)." 7. But it will be of interest to note that the word "procession" is conspicuous by its absence, in section 41-A of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888. However, Section 30 of yet another Act, known as Police Act, 1861 contains the expression "procession" and it reads as follows:- "30. Regulation of public assemblies and processions and licensing of the same:- (1) The District Superintendents or Assistant District Superintendent of Police may, as occasion requires, direct the conduct of all assemblies and processions on the public roads, or in the public streets or thoroughfares, and prescribe the routes by which, and the times at which, such processions may pass. Regulation of public assemblies and processions and licensing of the same:- (1) The District Superintendents or Assistant District Superintendent of Police may, as occasion requires, direct the conduct of all assemblies and processions on the public roads, or in the public streets or thoroughfares, and prescribe the routes by which, and the times at which, such processions may pass. (2) He may also, on being satisfied that it is intended by any persons or class of person to convene or collect an assembly in any such road, street or thoroughfare, or to form a procession which would, in the judgment of the Magistrate of the district, or of the sub-division of a district, if uncontrolled, be likely to cause a breach of the peace, require by general or special notice that the persons convening or collecting such assembly or directing or promoting such procession shall apply for a licence. (3) On such application being made, he may issue a licence specifying the names of the licences and defining the condition on which alone such assembly or such procession is to be permitted to take place and otherwise giving effect to this section: Provided that no fee shall be charged on the application for, or grant of, any such licence. (4) Music in the streets:- He may also regulate the extent to which music may be used in the streets on the occasion of festivals and ceremonies." 8. Before proceeding to consider the rival contentions, it is necessary to take note of the following facts:- (i) All the 3 enactments, now used by the State, are relics of a colonial past, used by the British to suppress the aspirations of the locals to get liberated from the alien rule. Of the three enactments, specific provisions of which are relied upon by the Respondents, the Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1859 was the earliest in point of time. In its original form, it was enacted purportedly for the better regulation of police within the territories subject to the Presidency of Fort St. George. The words "territories subject to the Presidency of Fort St. George" were substituted by the words "State of Tamil Nadu" by the Tamil Nadu Adaptation of Laws Order, 1970. In its original form, it was enacted purportedly for the better regulation of police within the territories subject to the Presidency of Fort St. George. The words "territories subject to the Presidency of Fort St. George" were substituted by the words "State of Tamil Nadu" by the Tamil Nadu Adaptation of Laws Order, 1970. It must be remembered that the Madras Presidency of those days, encompassed within itself, greater areas, some of which are now part and parcel of different States such as Andhra Pradesh, Orissa etc. (ii) Since the operation of the District Police Act, 1959, as per Section 55 is restricted only to the Districts, as notified by the State Government in the Official Gazette, it appears that yet another Act was put in place in the year 1861. It is known as Police Act, 1861. The preamble to the said Act also sings the very same theme namely, that it was intended to make the police force, a more efficient instrument for the prevention and detection of crime. This 1861 Act also contains provisions similar to those contained in the 1859 Act. Just as Section 55 of the 1895 Act, restricts the scope of operation of the District Police Act only to Districts notified by the State Government, Section 46 of the Police Act, 1861, also makes it clear that the 1861 Act, will not, by its own operation, take effect in any Presidency, State or place. But the State Government may extend the whole or any part of the Act to any Presidency, State or place. (iii) After the District Police Act of 1859 and the Police Act of 1861 came the third enactment namely, the City Police Act, 1888. As can be seen from its objects, it is intended only to regulate the police of the city of Chennai. The preamble to this Act says that it was intended to amend and consolidate the provisions of the laws for Regulating the Police of the City of Madras. Many of the provisions contained in this Act are similar to the provisions contained in the other two enactments. Section 41 of this Act (and not section 41-A) contains provisions for regulating assemblies, meetings and processions in public places. Many of the provisions contained in this Act are similar to the provisions contained in the other two enactments. Section 41 of this Act (and not section 41-A) contains provisions for regulating assemblies, meetings and processions in public places. (iv) A careful look at the history of the Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1859, shows that the same also contained a provision in Section 49, for the "Regulation of Public Processions etc. and of Carriages and Persons and Places of Public Resort. Regulation of Use of Music in Street". But this Section 49 of the District Police Act, 1859, was repealed by Act V of 1896. (v) However, the provision for "Regulation of Public Assemblies and Processions and Licensing of the same", as contained in Section 30 of Police Act, 1861, was retained with some modifications under the Police (Amendment) Act, VIII of 1895. Similarly, the analogous provision for regulating assemblies, meetings and processions, contained in section 41 of the City Police Act, 1888 was also retained. (vi) In other words, as on date, the City Police Act, 1888 contains a provision in section 41 and the Police Act, 1861 contains a provision section 30, for regulating assemblies, meetings and processions. But the District Police Act, 1859 does not contain a similar provision and what was once contained therein section 49, was also repealed by the Act V of 1896. 9. Keeping the above historical perspective in mind, let me now move over to a comparative study of these enactments. 10. Interestingly, Section 41 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888 and Section 30 of Police Act, 1861 are not in pari materia, though the purport and object of both appear to be the same. While Section 41 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888 is more elaborate, Section 30 of the 1861 Act, is less rigorous. This can be understood, only if we look at Section 41 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888 as well as Section30 of the Police Act, 1861 together. While Section 41 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888 is more elaborate, Section 30 of the 1861 Act, is less rigorous. This can be understood, only if we look at Section 41 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888 as well as Section30 of the Police Act, 1861 together. Hence, they are reproduced in a tabular form as follows:- Section 41 of Chennai City Police Act, 1888 Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861 Power to regulate assemblies, meetings and processions in public places, etc.--(1) The Commissioner or, subject to his orders, any Police Officer above the rank of Head Constable, may, from time to time, as occasion may require direct the conduct of all assemblies, meetings and processions in public places; prescribe the routes by which and the times at which such processions may pass; keep order in public places and prevent obstructions on the occasion of such assemblies, meetings and processions, and in the neighbourhood of places of worship during the time of public worship and in any case when public places may be thronged or liable to be obstructed; and may licence and regulate or prohibit the use of music or of sound amplifiers in any area. (2) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4), the Commissioner may, by order in writing, prohibit any assembly, meeting or procession if he considers such prohibition to be necessary for the preservation of the public peace or public safety; Provided that no order under this sub-section shall, without the sanction of the State Government, remain in force for more than fifteen days from the date on which such order takes effect. (3) (a) When the order referred to in sub-section (2) is in force, any person who intends to convene or collect any assembly or meeting in any public place of to direct or promote any procession, shall make an application to the Commissioner for permission. The application shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be specified by the Commissioner in this behalf and shall be made not less than five days prior to the date, on which the assembly or meeting is to be convened or collected or the procession is to be formed: Provided that the Commissioner may, for reasons to be recorded in writing receive such application five days prior to the date aforesaid. (b) On receipt of the application under clause (a), the Commissioner may, by order in writing served in the manner specified in sub-section (7), grant permission to convene or collect the assembly or meeting or to direct or promote the procession subject to such conditions as he may specify or refuse, to grant such permission. (4) Except in cases where immediate action is necessary for the preservation of the public peace or public safety no order refusing to grant permission shall be passed under clause (b) of subsection (3) without giving the person concerned an opportunity of appearing before the Commissioner either in person or by pleader and showing cause against the order refusing to grant permission and the Commissioner shall record, in writing the reasons for such order. (4A) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1) to (4), where any person intends to direct or promote any procession, he shall give prior notice, in writing, at least 24 hours in advance of the commencement of such procession indicating therein the routes by which and the time at which procession is proposed to be taken. Such notice shall be given to any Police Officer above the rank of a Head Constable of the police station having jurisdiction over the area in which the procession starts. (5) The Commissioner may, by order in writing, depute one or more Police Officers or other persons, to be present in any such assembly, meeting or procession, for the purpose of causing a report to be taken of the proceedings. (6) Any person who- (a) opposes or fails to obey any order under sub-section (1), or (b) contravenes the conditions of any licence under sub-section (1), or (bb) fails to give prior notice referred to in sub-section 4-A, or (c) when the order referred to is sub-Section (2) is in force, convenes or collects any assembly or meeting or directs or promotes any procession- (i) without the permission of the Commissioner under clause (b) of sub-section (3), or (ii) in contravention of any of the conditions subject to which the permission was granted under that clause, shall be liable, on conviction, to a fine not exceeding one thousand rupees or to imprisonment not exceeding one month or both. (7) The order referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (3) shall be served- (a) by giving or tendering the order to the person concerned or (b) if such person is not found, by leaving such order at his last known place of abode or business or by giving or tendering the same to some adult member of servant of his family; or (c) if such person does not reside in the City of Madras and his address elsewhere is known to the Commissioner, by sending the same to him by registered post; or (d) if none of the means aforesaid be available, by affixing the same in some conspicuous part of the place of abode or business of such person. (8) Nothing in this section shall apply to any assembly or meeting of a purely religious character held in a recognized place of worship, any assembly or meeting gathered together purely for the purpose of taking part in sports, any procession on the occasion of any wedding, funeral or similar domestic occurrence, or of any religious ceremony, or to any public meeting held under any statutory or other express legal authority, or public meeting convened by the Sheriff, or to any public meetings or class of public meetings exempted for that purpose by the State Government by general or special order. (9) For the purposes of this section- (a) the words " assembly" " meeting" and "procession" include any assembly meeting or procession which is open to the public or to any class or portion of public; (b) a place in which an assembly or meeting is held may be public place notwithstanding anything that is held in a private place and notwithstanding that admission thereto may have been restricted by ticket or otherwise. Regulation of public assemblies and processions and licensing of the same:- (1) The District Superintendents or Assistant District Superintendent of Police may, as occasion requires, direct the conduct of all assemblies and processions on the public roads, or in the public streets or thoroughfares, and prescribe the routes by which, and the times at which, such processions may pass. Regulation of public assemblies and processions and licensing of the same:- (1) The District Superintendents or Assistant District Superintendent of Police may, as occasion requires, direct the conduct of all assemblies and processions on the public roads, or in the public streets or thoroughfares, and prescribe the routes by which, and the times at which, such processions may pass. (2) He may also, on being satisfied that it is intended by any persons or class of person to convene or collect an assembly in any such road, street or thoroughfare, or to form a procession which would, in the judgment of the Magistrate of the district, or of the sub-division of a district, if uncontrolled, be likely to cause a breach of the peace, require by general or special notice that the persons convening or collecting such assembly or directing or promoting such procession shall apply for a licence. (3) On such application being made, he may issue a licence specifying the names of the licences and defining the condition on which alone such assembly or such procession is to be permitted to take place and otherwise giving effect to this section: Provided that no fee shall be charged on the application for, or grant of, any such licence. (4) Music in the streets:- He may also regulate the extent to which music may be used in the streets on the occasion of festivals and ceremonies." 11. A careful comparison of Section 41 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888 with Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861 would show that the power to prohibit any assembly, meeting or procession is available only to the Commissioner, under Section 41(2) of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888. This power is also restricted by the proviso thereunder. Under Section 41 (3) (a), a person intending to take out a procession, may make an application to the Commissioner seeking permission, even if a prohibitory order is in force under Section 41(2). A careful reading of clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 41 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888 would show that the grant of permission for convening an assembly or meeting and promoting a procession, is the rule and the refusal of permission is the exception. A careful reading of clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 41 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888 would show that the grant of permission for convening an assembly or meeting and promoting a procession, is the rule and the refusal of permission is the exception. Even if the Commissioner decides to refuse permission under clause (b) of sub-section (3), he cannot refuse, without affording an opportunity of appearing in person or through pleader and showing cause against the proposal to refuse. This is in terms of sub-section (4). 12. In contrast to Section 41 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888, the provisions of Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861 provide only one option for the police. Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the 1861 Act, is analogous to the first limb of Section 41(1) of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888. The power available thereunder is confined only to the passing of general orders prescribing certain places and the routes through which processions may pass. Unlike subsection (2) of Section 41 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888, Sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861 does not confer any power upon the police to issue an order prohibiting any assembly or procession. It merely enables the District Superintendent of Police to require by a general or special notice, all persons who want to hold an assembly or organise a procession, to apply for a licence. Sub-section (3) of Section 30 provides only one option for the District Superintendent of Police, namely to issue a licence. While Section 41(3)(b) of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888 confers, in express terms, powers upon the Chennai City Police Commissioner to refuse to grant permission, no such power is conferred upon the District Superintendents of Police under Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861, to refuse a licence. The District Superintendents of Police may perhaps have to rely upon the provisions of the General Clauses Act, to claim that the power to issue a licence would include a power to refuse. 13. The District Superintendents of Police may perhaps have to rely upon the provisions of the General Clauses Act, to claim that the power to issue a licence would include a power to refuse. 13. I think it is only due to the above lacuna that the State chose to amend the Chennai City Police Act, 1888 by inserting Section 41-A under Tamil Nadu 34 of 2012 and also chose to fall back upon Section 54-A of the Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1859, to extend the provisions of the Chennai City Police Act to other areas. 14. But even the insertion of Section 41-A in the Chennai City Police Act, 1888, by way of amendment under Act 34 of 2012 with effect from 07.09.2012 does not appear to have resolved the tale of woes of the State police. Section 41-A, which I have extracted earlier, deals only with any drill, training or assembly with arms or in uniform resembling the uniform of the armed forces of the Union or the police force. It does not deal with the holding of processions as such. The question of holding of processions, is covered even till date, only by Section 41 and not by Section 41-A of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888. A careful look at Sections 41 and 41-A would show that (i) Section 41 takes care of assemblies, meetings and processions; and (ii) Section 41-A takes care of drill with arms, training with arms and and assembly with arms or in uniform. 15. In other words, it is not processions that are regulated by Section 41-A, but only the drill or training or assembly with arms or in uniform that is regulated by Section 41-A. If processions are to be prohibited, the Commissioner of Police or the Superintendent of Police can take recourse only to Section 41(3)(b) of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888. 16. Even by way of any ingenious interpretation, section 41-A cannot be construed to cover the organising of processions. This is borne out even by the Amendment Act 34 of 2012. If we look at the history of insertion of Section 41-A in the Chennai City Police Act, 1888, it will be seen that Section 41-A was inserted by the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 19 of 1984 with effect from 16.12.1983. This is borne out even by the Amendment Act 34 of 2012. If we look at the history of insertion of Section 41-A in the Chennai City Police Act, 1888, it will be seen that Section 41-A was inserted by the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 19 of 1984 with effect from 16.12.1983. When it was so introduced, Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 41-A contained the expression "procession". But, under the 2012 Amendment, the word "procession" has been deleted. One can appreciate it by comparing sub-section (1) of section 41-A as it stood before and after the amendment. Section 41-A (1)(a) before 2012 amendment Section 41-A (1) after 2012 amendment The Commissioner may, whenever he considers it necessary so to do for the preservation of the public peace or public safety or for the maintenance of public order, by order in writing, prohibit the holding of, or taking part in, any drill with arms or training with arms by five or more persons in any place, whether public or private, or the carrying of arms in any procession. The Commissioner may, whenever he considers it necessary so to do for the preservation of the public peace or public safety or for the maintenance of public order, by order in writing, prohibit the holding of, or taking part in, any drill training or assembly with arms or in uniform resembling that of armed forces of the Union or Police force whether in a public or private place. 17. It will be clear from a comparison that the word "procession" which was there in section 41A (1), before the Amendment of 2012, has been specifically deleted by the amendment. Therefore, section 41-A (1) has ceased to deal with processions, after the 2012 amendment. But overlooking this crucial aspect, the Respondents have taken recourse only to Section 41-A of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888 read with Section 54-A of the Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1859, in all the cases on hand. 18. The Respondents have not realised that Section 49 of the Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1859 is already repealed way back in 1896 and Section 30(2) of the Police Act, 1861 does not speak about prohibition, but speaks only about licensing the holding of assemblies and the carrying of processions. 18. The Respondents have not realised that Section 49 of the Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1859 is already repealed way back in 1896 and Section 30(2) of the Police Act, 1861 does not speak about prohibition, but speaks only about licensing the holding of assemblies and the carrying of processions. The Respondents have also not realised that there is no prohibitory order in force under Section 41(2) of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888 to enable them to pass orders of refusal under Section 41(3)(b). 19. Therefore, fundamentally, the orders passed by the Respondents, are not in accordance with the mandate of Section 41-A, as this section has no application to the holding of processions, but has application only to (i) a drill (ii) training (iii) assembly with arms or (iv) assembly in uniform. 20. Arguments were advanced on both sides on the question as to whether the Khaki half-trouser and the white shirt worn by the volunteers of the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh, resemble the uniform of the armed forces of the Union or the police force. Apart from the fact that no member of the police force today wear half-trousers, the question is of no relevance to the cases on hand, since Section 41-A does not deal with the holding of processions but it deals only with drill, training or assembly. It is claimed that the uniform that the volunteers wear, was designed way back in 1920s. Therefore, the Respondents appear to have raised a bogey, in the form of such an objection and they have taken recourse to a wrong provision of law. Hence, on a pure and simple question of law, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 21. There can be no dispute about the fact that the right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to assemble peaceably and without arms, are fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution. By virtue of clauses (2) and (3) of Article 19, this right is subject to any existing law or a law enacted by the State, imposing reasonable restrictions. Such reasonable restrictions, if they relate to Article 19(1)(a), should have a nexus with (i) interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India (ii) friendly relations with foreign States (iii) public order (iv) decency (v) morality (vi) contempt of court (vii) defamation or (viii) incitement to offence. Such reasonable restrictions, if they relate to Article 19(1)(a), should have a nexus with (i) interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India (ii) friendly relations with foreign States (iii) public order (iv) decency (v) morality (vi) contempt of court (vii) defamation or (viii) incitement to offence. But if those reasonable restrictions relate to the right under Article 19(1) (b), they should have nexus only with 2 things namely (i) interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or (ii) public order. In other words, the scope for imposing reasonable restrictions in relation to the right under Article 19 (1) (b) is very limited only to 2 things when compared to the scope for imposing reasonable restrictions in relation to the right under Article 19 (1)(a). Therefore, Courts have repeatedly grappled with questions of this nature and several decisions have been cited on both sides. 22. The cases that have come up before Courts fall under two categories, namely (i) those seeking permission to hold public meetings and demonstrations, and (ii) those seeking permission to hold rallies or take out processions. Again cases where permission is sought to take out processions fall under two categories, namely (i) those where a right is claimed as an essential part of the profession of any religion, and (ii) those where the rally or procession is sought to be taken for advancing a social cause. The cases which fall under the former category, may involve even the application of Article 25 of the Constitution. The cases on hand do not fall under such category, since the petitioners do not claim that they seek to take out a procession as an essential part of any religious rite. 23. In the cases on hand, I am only concerned about (i) the right to take out processions, not as an essential part of a religious rite, but purportedly for a social cause, and (ii) the right to hold a public meeting. Keeping the above in mind, let me now have a look at the decisions relied upon by the parties on both sides. 24. Keeping the above in mind, let me now have a look at the decisions relied upon by the parties on both sides. 24. Cases which dealt with the right to hold rallies or take out processions: (i) Even during British days, the right to hold rallies and take out processions as part of religious rites, was recognized by Courts, as seen from one of the landmark decisions of the Privy Council in Saiyid Manzur Hasan v. Saiyid Muhammad Zaman [52 I.A. 61]. In the said case, which arose out of a decision of the Allahabad High Court, there was a dispute with regard to the conduct of the procession by Shia Muslims. The Sunnis objected in the year 1916 to the procession of the Shias passing through their mosque, on the ground that it disturbed their worship at the mosque. In order to prevent disturbances, the Magistrate passed a regulation prohibiting the performances of what is known as "Matam" (a ceremony involving the stopping at a place and wailing), within a certain distance of the mosque. The Shias approached the Court of Aligarh seeking a declaration of their right to go in procession and use Matam. The action was opposed by Sunnis. The District Judge granted the declaration, but made it subject to any order that the Magistrate may pass from time to time. The High Court reversed the judgment and dismissed the suit, refusing to grant a declaration. After the grant of leave, the Privy Council held that there was a right to conduct a religious procession with its appropriate observations along a highway. Though the said decision of the Supreme Court related to religious procession, the Supreme Court adopted the same view in Sheikh Piru Bux v. Kalandi Pati Rao [ AIR 1970 SC 1885 ], both for religious as well as non-religious processions with appropriate music along the roads and public highways. In fact, in the case before the Supreme Court, there was a compromise decree between Hindus and Muslims of the locality. But, since the suit had not been filed in a representative capacity, the Supreme Court held that the compromise decree was not binding on the community at large. A request was made to the Supreme Court to review the law laid down by the Privy Council in Saiyid Manzur Hasan, but, the Supreme Court declined. But, since the suit had not been filed in a representative capacity, the Supreme Court held that the compromise decree was not binding on the community at large. A request was made to the Supreme Court to review the law laid down by the Privy Council in Saiyid Manzur Hasan, but, the Supreme Court declined. (ii) Again in Qasim Raza v. Emperor [AIR 1935 All. 657], which arose under Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861, a person was prosecuted and convicted for violating the prohibition from taking out a procession. The Sessions Court confirmed the conviction and fine. On a revision to the Allahabad High Court, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that under Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861, the Superintendent of Police may either issue a license or may not issue a license. But, the Act does not in terms give him authority to refuse to issue a license. Consequently, the Division Bench held that it would not be an offence to take out procession merely because no license had been issued. It is true that the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court did not take note of the General Clauses Act. However, the Division Bench held as follows: "It is right of a citizen to use the public thoroughfares, provided that he commits no offence in doing so and the taking out of a procession is not in itself an offence, nor does it require a special license, except as provided by Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861"; and (iii) In G.Pavendhan v. State of Tamil Nadu, this Court granted permission to Advocates, farmers, workers, students and human rights activists to hold a rally for protesting the alleged inaction on the part of the police in solving a case relating to the murder of an advocate. 25. Cases which dealt with the right to hold public meetings: (i) In Himat Lal K.Shah Vs. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, the Supreme Court was concerned with the question as to the right of citizens to hold public meetings at public streets. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court pointed out in the said case that holding public meetings in open spaces and public streets, forms part of the tradition of our national life. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, the Supreme Court was concerned with the question as to the right of citizens to hold public meetings at public streets. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court pointed out in the said case that holding public meetings in open spaces and public streets, forms part of the tradition of our national life. The Supreme Court eventually struck down Rule 7 of the Rules for Processions and Public Meetings, as unconstitutional in the said case. (ii) In P.Nedumaran Vs. State of Tamilnadu [1999 (1) LW (Crl.) 73], R.Jayasimha Babu,J pointed out that the right conferred on the citizens by Article 19 are precious rights and are not to be lightly breached or restricted by the State or any functionary of the State. As a matter of fact, the said case arose out of the cancellation of permission granted to Thamizar Desiya Iyakkan, for holding a conference titled Tamils Warning Conference. After referring to the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Himat Lal K.Shah, the learned Judge pointed out that the power conferred upon the Commissioner under Section 41 of the Madras City Police Act is sweeping and that the power is meant to be exercised with great care and caution. The learned Judge also followed the decision of the Supreme Court in S.Rangarajan Vs. P.Jagjivan Ram [ 1989 (2) SCC 574 ], to hold that the interests of freedom of expression and social interest cannot be regarded as of equal weight and the court’s commitment to freedom of expression demands that it cannot be suppressed unless the situations created by allowing the freedom are pressing and the community interest is endangered. More particularly, the learned Judge pointed out that whenever the respondents come up with a plea of anticipated danger, it is to be seen whether the anticipated danger is remote or conjectural or far-fetched. (iii) In State of Karnataka Vs. Dr.Praveen Bhai Thogadia [ 2004 (4) SCC 684 ], the Supreme Court indicated that the valuable and cherished right of freedom of expression and speech may at times have to be subjected to reasonable subordination to social interests, needs and necessities to preserve the very core of democratic life namely the preservation of public order and rule of law. Dr.Praveen Bhai Thogadia [ 2004 (4) SCC 684 ], the Supreme Court indicated that the valuable and cherished right of freedom of expression and speech may at times have to be subjected to reasonable subordination to social interests, needs and necessities to preserve the very core of democratic life namely the preservation of public order and rule of law. But the said case arose out of an order passed by the Additional District Magistrate of Dakshina Kannada restraining the respondent therein from entering the said District and from participating in any function in the District for a period of 15 days. This decision was taken on account of the inflammatory speech that the respondent had earlier made. Therefore, in the light of the fact that the religious harmony was at stake and that consequently, the essential requirement of preservation of public order and rule of law was threatened, the Supreme Court held in that case that courts should not normally interfere with matters relating to law and order. (iv) Following the decision in Dr.Praveen Bhai Thogadia, it was held by a learned Judge of this court in Dr.K.Krishnasamy Vs. The Superintendent of Police [ 2006 (1) CTC 396 ] that the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a), is subject to reasonable restrictions. (v) In Rama.Muthuramalingam Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, [ 2004 (5) CTC 554 ], a Division Bench of this Court, following Thogadia, held that maintenance of law and order is ordinarily an executive function and it is ordinarily not proper for the Judiciary to interfere. The Division Bench held on the facts and circumstances of the case, that the decision taken by the Deputy Superintendent of Police in that case could not be faulted, as it cannot be said to be outrageous in defiance of logic. (vi) N.Kirubakaran, J considered similar requests, at least in three cases, one in S.Raja Maravan Vs. The Superintendent of Police [ 2013 (1) CTC 314 ], another in Theverina Pathukappu Peravai Vs. The Superintendent of Police and the third is S.Sivakumar Vs. The State of Tamilnadu [ 2013 (5) CTC 695 ]. In all these cases, the learned Judge followed Thogadia and held that when permission is refused with a view to maintain law and order, it is not open to this Court to sit on appeal over the decision of the Authority. The State of Tamilnadu [ 2013 (5) CTC 695 ]. In all these cases, the learned Judge followed Thogadia and held that when permission is refused with a view to maintain law and order, it is not open to this Court to sit on appeal over the decision of the Authority. As a matter of fact, the learned Judge recorded in a tabular statement, certain statistics regarding number of persons killed, injured, number of cases filed and the value of properties that were lost, when permission was granted to such meetings or conferences. Consequently, the learned Judge issued various directions in S.Sivakumar almost directing the Authorities to prohibit certain celebrations. (vii) But, there are at least two Division Bench decisions of this Court, which require to be taken note of. Both the decisions took note of the development of law in entirety, starting from Himat Lal K.Shah. The first is that of the Division Bench in C.J.Rajan Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police. In the said case, the Division Bench traced the history from Himat Lal K.Shah and the journey that the law undertook through the decision in S.Rangarajan and eventually, the Division Bench came to the conclusion that such meetings are not to be prohibited. The next decision of the Division Bench is the one between Home Secretary and Era.Selvam [W.A.Nos.842 and 843 of 2013] dated 13.4.2013. In the said case, the District Administration relied upon two decisions of the Supreme Court and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court. The first decision relied on by the State was one in Dr.Praveen Bhai Thogadia. The second case relied upon by the State before the Division Bench in that case was Ramlila Maiden Incident, In re [ 2012 (5) SCC 1 ]. The State also relied upon the decision of the Division Bench in Rama. Muthuramalingam. After considering the very same decisions, which are now relied upon before me and also considering the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramlila Maiden, the Division Bench of this Court held that the right of the citizens to conduct processions and public meetings cannot be curtailed except on definite reasons; (viii) In K.T.Patchaimal v. The Superintendent of Police [2009 WLR 65], K.Chandru,J, was concerned with the right of a political party to hold demonstrations. After referring to the decision in Himat Lal K.Shah and the provisions of Section 30(2) of the Police Act, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the provision is only regulatory and does not confer a blanket power to trifle any democratic dissent; (ix) Again in D.Sandilyan v. The Superintendent of Police, this Court granted permission to Vidhuthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi to hold demonstrations; (x) In M.Jayaraj v. The Superintendent of Police, the Pattali Makkal Katchi was granted permission to hold a public meeting; (xi) In S.Veerakumar v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, the Joint Committee for Caste Abolition was granted permission to hold a demonstration against the closure of a beef stall run by Arunthathiyars in the weekly market at a particular place; (xii) In L.Maran v. The Superintendent of Police, Naam Thamizhar Iyakkam was directed to be granted permission to organise a meeting to protest the killing of fishermen; (xiii) In Adhirai M.M. Ibrahim v. The Commissioner of Police [2005 (3) CTC 260], K.P.Sivasubramaniam,J, dealt with the refusal of permission to organise a dharna to different organisations. Eventually, the learned Judge allowed the writ petitions; and (xiv) In R.Navarasan v. The Home Secretary [W.P.No.21838 of 2014 dated 14.8.2014], I had an occasion to consider the plea of Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi to conduct a conference. The writ petition was allowed by me. 26. Though Mr.AL.Somayaji, learned Advocate General relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Acharya Jagdishwaran vs. Commissioner of Police [ (1983) 4 SCC 522 ], the same concerned a question as to whether the right of the Ananda Margis to perform tandava dance carrying lethal weapons and human skulls formed part of an essential religious rite protected by Articles 25 and 26 or not. Since Article 19(1)(b) itself specifies that the right guaranteed thereunder is to assemble peaceably and without arms, the said decision is of no relevance to the case on hand. 27. In the cases on hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners have stated that the processionists will not carry lathis and will not shout slogans inciting any violence or offending sentiments of anyone. In any case, the right flowing under Article 19(1)(b) itself is restricted to assemble peaceably and without arms. Since the definition of the expression "arms" includes "lathis", the processionists cannot carry lathis. In any case, the right flowing under Article 19(1)(b) itself is restricted to assemble peaceably and without arms. Since the definition of the expression "arms" includes "lathis", the processionists cannot carry lathis. The organisers are prepared to give the names and addresses of persons who will take responsibility for any untoward incident, if it happens. Therefore, after having permitted rallies, processions and public meetings for several organisations, it may not be possible to deny such permission to the petitioners. 28. As regards the inputs allegedly received from the Intelligence Agencies, it should be pointed out that those inputs, a copy of which is handed over to me, are of a general nature. Those inputs are actually received over a long period of time from January 2014 onwards and not with particular reference to a rally or public meeting that the petitioners want to take out. 29. Moreover, as pointed out earlier, the respondents have relied upon Section 41-A of the Chennai City Police Act and Section 30(2) of the Police Act, 1861, both of which provided only for regulation and not prohibition. Therefore, all these writ petitions are allowed, directing the respondents to grant permissions to the petitioners to take out processions in the routes specified by the respondents and to hold public meetings in the places earmarked by the respondents with such reasonable restrictions as they deem fit and proper. No costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 to 3 in the respective writ petitions are closed.