Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1012 (CAL)

Hindu Jagaran Manch v. State of West Bengal

2017-12-28

RAJASEKHAR MANTHA

body2017
JUDGMENT : RAJASEKHAR MANTHA, J. 1. The writ petitioners claim to be a social organization. The writ petitioners are desirous of holding a meeting to pay homage to the Martyrs of the Parliament attack. Such programme according to the writ petitioners, who have branches all over the Country was being, was being conducted from the 13th to 31st December, 2017. Accordingly, the petitioners sought permission of the school concerned being the Harinavi Dwarkanath Vidyabhusan Anglow Sanskrit Uchha Vidyalaya (Harinavi D.V.A.S.) High School and were granted permission to hold meeting vide letter dated 14th November 2017 issued by the school authorities. The writ petitioners claimed to have made public notice of such meeting by way of pamphlets and posters throughout the vicinity and thereafter on the 16th of December 2017 have formally informed in writing the Block Development Officer, Sonarpur through the Inspector-in-Charge, Sonarpur, Police Station as regards the proposed meeting. 2. The State authorities are represented before me. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, Mr. Sen submits on instructions that they have no objection in principle, for holding of such meeting. However, Mr. Sen submits that the police authorities have the following objections for the said meeting to be held on the 31st of December, 2017. (a) The 31st of December 2017 being a day for revellers to celebrate on coming New Year the police authorities will be slightly over-burdened on that day. (b) There have been incidents of violence between two communities in respect of the similar meetings held in the vicinity in February 2017. (c) That the 31st of December 2017 as also the location of the meeting falls on the route of pilgrims to the Gangasagar Mela held at Sagar Island in South 24 Parganas. 3. Mr. Sen relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1973 Supreme Court page 87, (Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad and Another) particularly paragraph 31 thereof. Mr. Sen also submits that the petitioners are at liberty to hold such meetings on any day except the 31st of December 2017. 4. In reply the writ petitioners submit that the police authorities were duly informed of the details of the of the meeting on the 16th of December, 2017 and had notice thereof much prior thereto. Mr. Sen also submits that the petitioners are at liberty to hold such meetings on any day except the 31st of December 2017. 4. In reply the writ petitioners submit that the police authorities were duly informed of the details of the of the meeting on the 16th of December, 2017 and had notice thereof much prior thereto. The date in particular coincides with the final day for holding of such remembrance for the Martyrs of the Parliament attack. 5. I have considered the rival submissions. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Himat Lal (supra) relied upon by the State authorities at paragraph 31. It is stipulated as follows: "It seems to us that it follows from the above discussion that in India a citizen had, before the Constitution, a right to hold meetings on public streets subject to the control of the appropriate authority regarding the time and place of the meeting and subject to considerations of public order. Therefore, were are unable to hold that the impugned rules are ultra vires S. 33(1) of the Bombay Police Act, insofar as they require prior permission for holding meetings." 6. It is also necessary for this Court to consider paragraph 33 which is set out herein below: "This is true but nevertheless the State cannot by law abridge or take away the right of assembly by prohibiting assembly on every public street or public place. The State can only make regulations in aid of the right of assembly of each citizen and can only imposes reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order. This Court in Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra, (1961) 3 SCR 423 at p. 438 : AIR 1961 SC 884 ), rightly observed:) "The right of citizens to take out processions or to hold public meetings flows from the right in Art. 19(1)(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms and the right to move anywhere in the territory of India". 7. From the above, it is apparent that the right to hold public meetings and gatherings is a right recognised under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. However, the said right is subject to reasonable restrictions. The restrictions that may be imposed by the State cannot be otherwise questioned. The only issue raised by the State authorities with regard to the particular date i.e. the 31st of December 2017. However, the said right is subject to reasonable restrictions. The restrictions that may be imposed by the State cannot be otherwise questioned. The only issue raised by the State authorities with regard to the particular date i.e. the 31st of December 2017. It is true that on the said date the police authorities are required to slightly more vigilant than any other normal day. According to me however, it is quite possible for the State to mobilize appropriate forces and they may also augment forces from the Central Government if they so please. 8. The objection of the State authorities on the basis of a past incident cannot be a reason for refusing or deferring any particular social gathering. 9. As for the objection that the locale and situs of the meeting concerned falls in the route and time for Gangasagar pilgrims, I note as follows. The maximum pressure on the State administration at Sagar Island, under the jurisdiction of the South 24 Parganas police, is during Makar Sankranti which falls some time in the middle of January, 2018. The pilgrimage in much smaller numbers in this direction however, has started since the second week of December, 2017. Hence the objection to the date and holding of the meeting on the 31st of December 2017 on this ground cannot be sustained. 10. As for revellers for the celebration of the incoming New Year coinciding with festivities starting on the 31st of December 2017, I am of the view that most of such revellery starts in the evening and continues until late night and thereafter early in the morning of the 1st January 2018. The proposed, meeting is due to be held between 2 p.m. in the afternoon until 5 p.m. It is, therefore, possible for the State authorities to mobilize police force for the meeting to be held by the writ petitioners. 11. The apprehension of bloodshed in the area, according to me, too far-fetched and an attempt at sensalization. I, therefore, cannot accept the police administration's objections in this regard. 12. The State authorities, however, shall be entitled to impose all and every reasonable restriction and/or condition for holding of such meeting. 13. At this juncture, upon being asked by the Court, the writ petitioners agree to alter the timing of their meeting. I, therefore, cannot accept the police administration's objections in this regard. 12. The State authorities, however, shall be entitled to impose all and every reasonable restriction and/or condition for holding of such meeting. 13. At this juncture, upon being asked by the Court, the writ petitioners agree to alter the timing of their meeting. The learned Advocate for the writ petitioner agrees to modify such time as may be requested by the State administration. The writ petitioners are willing to propone the time to suit the authority's convenience. The authorities shall also consider the convenience of the writ petitioners while fixing and agreeing to a fresh timing. 14. The State may hold a meeting with the writ petitioners either in the course of the day and not later than 12 noon tomorrow i.e. the 29th of December 2017. 15. The writ petitioners agree that they shall abide by all reasonable conditions that may be imposed by the State authorities for holding of such meeting. The writ petitioners also undertake to bear any expenditure for deployment of additional forces that may be required by the police administration in that regard. 16. The writ petitioners relied upon the judgment reported in (1993) 1 Calcutta Law Times 436 passed by a Single Bench of this Court in (Dr. Anindya Mitra & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.). Paragraph 51 thereof of the said judgment, at a first glance clearly suggests relevance to the instant case. The fact of the case, however, relate to a situation where a total prohibition of meetings by the State authorities was being tested before this Hon'ble Court. 17. The writ petitioners in conduct of the meeting undertake before this Court to maintain complete order and cleanliness. The responsibility of cleaning up the locale after holding of such meeting shall also rest on the Writ petitioners. The writ petitioners also shall maintain the assembly and conduct the same in peace and without disturbing public order. In course of the meeting to be held as aforesaid, the persons to be held liable for the acts and omissions in relation to such meeting shall be clearly specified to the Officer-in-charge, Sonapur Police Station. 18. W.P. 31496(W) of 2017 is disposed of with the aforesaid discussion. 19. There will be no order as to costs. In course of the meeting to be held as aforesaid, the persons to be held liable for the acts and omissions in relation to such meeting shall be clearly specified to the Officer-in-charge, Sonapur Police Station. 18. W.P. 31496(W) of 2017 is disposed of with the aforesaid discussion. 19. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.