JUDGMENT : N. SESHASAYEE, J. Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in C. No. 20/P/E4-PS/TRC/2019 on the file of the respondent No. 3, dated 09.02.2019 and quash the same as illegal and consequently seeking for a direction to direct the respondent no. 2 to grant permission to the petitioner and other members of the “Tamil Puligal” Party to conduct the public meeting in Ulavar Sandai Tidal, Trichy at about 04.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. on 14.02.2019 or any other time within the time frame stipulated by this Court. 1. The Writ Petition has been filed to quash the Order of the 3rd respondent dated 09.02.2019, rejecting permission for holding a public meeting to condemn honour killing by petitioner's organization "Tamil Puligal" (Tamil Tigers) at Ulavar Sandai grounds, Trichy, proposed to be held between 4 pm and 10 pm on 14.02.2019 and to direct the 2nd respondent to grant one. 2. The 3rd respondent, Inspector of Police has rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that the details of the speakers are not been given and the subject on which they propose to speak. 3. Attacking the impugned Order of the 3rd respondent as an attempt to stifle the right to free speech and that there cannot be any pre censorship of the content of the speech. He fortified his arguments with a catena of authorities where the Courts have amplified the significance of free speech which included. In Re: Ramlila Maidan Incident, (2012) 5 SCC 1 , Home Secretary, Govt. of Tamil Nadu vs. Era. Selvam, (2013) 3 MLJ 513 , Thol. Thirumavalavan vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu though Home Secretary, (2013) 6 MLJ 137 and C. Sakthivel vs. Commissioner of Police, Chennai, ( 2010 (5) CTC 134 . He indicated that due to paucity of time to obtain meeting within a day, the meeting may now be held on 22-02-2019. 4. In response, the learned Govt. Advocate, on instruction submitted that the previous experience has been that the quality of speeches made have disrupted public order. 5. The impugned Order is a short, literally non-speaking order. If only the 3rd respondent had required the list of speakers who were proposed to speak in the meeting, he could have sought it in writing. Advocate, on instruction submitted that the previous experience has been that the quality of speeches made have disrupted public order. 5. The impugned Order is a short, literally non-speaking order. If only the 3rd respondent had required the list of speakers who were proposed to speak in the meeting, he could have sought it in writing. Secondly, the Order is devoid of any material to indicate about the alleged incendiary speeches earlier. On the face of it the Order shall go. 6. Not infrequent are the occasions when the citizens approach the Courts, complaining of attempted infringement on free speech that the Constitution has guaranteed to them. It is about three scores and a decade since this country was declared a Republic, yet the right to free speech is not seen to be comfortably handled. 7.1 In L. Cheziyan @ Sakthivel vs. The Commissioner of Police, Trichy and Others, W.P. (MD) No. 3154 of 2019, an identical issue came before this court, and the same was disposed of with a set of directions. In course of explaining the reasoning behind issuing directions, it is held: “5. When in Menaka Gandhi vs. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 , the Supreme Court has held that the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 must be read into Article 21 of the Constitution and that it coexists to complement the latter, it necessarily follows that the unrestricted exercise of the right under Article 19(1)(a) carries with it the portent for interference with the quality of life to which the rest of the citizenry is entitled to under Article 21. It is true that Article 21 reflects the State's power to make just laws to interfere with right to life, but is it not premised on the fact that citizens enjoy equal right to live with honour and dignity? This underlying idea cannot be dismissed when right to free speech is sought to be exercised. There cannot be freedom of speech if there is no freedom of thought and conscience, and they do not thrive where equality does not prevail. 6. If the Constitutionalism has to survive in this country, then it is not just the responsibility of the State but that of everyone of its constituent citizens to carry its spirit in their hearts and souls. In a democracy, the line dividing the State and the collective of its citizens is faint. 6. If the Constitutionalism has to survive in this country, then it is not just the responsibility of the State but that of everyone of its constituent citizens to carry its spirit in their hearts and souls. In a democracy, the line dividing the State and the collective of its citizens is faint. For a citizen to exercise his rights under the Constitution responsibly, he need not look to the State, for he owes his existence not to the mercy of the State, but to the might of the Constitution. 7. It therefore, does not require a State intervention to regulate it. It might be that Article 19(2) of the Constitution has empowered the State to make laws to impose reasonable restrictions on the fundamental right to free speech, yet personal responsibility expected of a citizen that he will exercise it within reasonable bounds goes with the very right, even if one were to presume that Article 19(2) does not exist. Every aspect on which the State can bring a law to impose reasonable restrictions on free speech should therefore, be considered as an integral factor of the said right. If We, the People, have given unto ourselves the Constitution, then it becomes the responsibility of every citizen to protect the Constitution not in fear of any State regulations, but in respect for the Constitution, and in their realisation of this responsibility...... 10. The Constitutional rights finds its pair in the Constitutional duties or responsibilities. And, he who is conscious of his Constitutionally guaranteed rights and demands it, should also be prepared to submit to performing the Constitutional duties that goes with it. Time has come for the Courts not just to be a sentinel on the qui vive against State's attempts to invade the Constitutional rights of the citizens, but also against flirting tendencies of the citizens not to abide by their Constitutional responsibilities or duties. The latter may not be enforceable, yet they cannot be ignored.” 7.2 These passages have not lost their contextual relevance here. In a sense, this Order can well be a copy-paste stuff, as the conclusion herein arrived is the same. However, in explaining the reasoning for the decision, by retaining its core intact, certain additional aspects are now dealt with. In that sense, this Order may be termed as a sequel to the Order in Chezhiyan's case. 8. In a sense, this Order can well be a copy-paste stuff, as the conclusion herein arrived is the same. However, in explaining the reasoning for the decision, by retaining its core intact, certain additional aspects are now dealt with. In that sense, this Order may be termed as a sequel to the Order in Chezhiyan's case. 8. If the contemporary experience is not dismissed, it is seen providing clues to understand the pathological causes of the administrative attitude on right to free speech. If silencing a voice of dissent through administrative arbitrariness is the common allegation, a section of the citizens also appear to compete to deny themselves a deserving place in the public space for free speech. 9. How free is then the right to free speech? Where lies the outer contours of this right? If the scheme the Constitution is analysed, that which interests an ordinary citizen is his guaranteed fundamental rights under Part III, as they have immediate and continuous relevance to his existence under the Constitution. An interference thereof is instantly felt. Now, in the context of right to free speech, the Constitution spotlights on three aspects: (a) The fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a); (b) The reasonable restrictions that the State may legislatively choose to impose on it under Article 19(2) and (c) the Fundamental Duties under Article 51A. 10. There is a school of Constitutional thought that believes that the extent of right to free speech is limited only by a State's restriction operating on it. And, logically it appears sound, as it rests on the principle that anything not prohibited is available. It therefore, may mean that barring reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), the Constitution does not permit a third factor limiting the exercise of right to free speech. Not even the Fundamental Duties under Article 51A, since the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held them as non-enforceable duties. AIIMS Students Union vs. AIIMS and Others, (2002) 1 SCC 428 , State of West Bengal and Others vs. Sujit Kumar Rana, (2004) 4 SCC 129 and confirmed later by a bench of seven judges of the supreme Court in the State of Gujarat vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat and Others, 2005 (8) SCC 534 . 11. It can now be deduced that the freedom of right to free speech ends where the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) commences. 11. It can now be deduced that the freedom of right to free speech ends where the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) commences. However, Article 19(2) is not automated to restrict the freedom of free speech within its bounds, but only enables the State to make laws restricting it “........in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence....” Ultimately, the validity of a restriction on freedom of free speech and its reasonableness are determined in a forensic scrutiny by the Courts. It, therefore, may appear that there is no apparent availability of an inbuilt mechanism to regulate the free speech. However, does it mean that the Constitution has not provided a self-guiding and self-regulating personal restrain on free speech? A response in the negative may be an instant reaction, but it may fail to show respect to the faith that the Constitution-framers have reposed on the citizens of this country - on their sense of responsibility. 12. When the Constitution declared what the citizens shall have, and where the State may make laws, it presupposed that a citizen, though may be economically and educationally challenged, though may be struggling for the bare necessities, yet believed that he would a responsible citizen. A classic illustration of this presupposition is seen in granting universal adult franchise, which is conceptually holier, but given the diversity and level of political awareness of the citizens it would not have been conceived but for the presumption attributing responsibility to an ordinary citizen. And, the reasonable restrictions for imposing which the Constitution has made provision, is intended chiefly to restrain human temptations to break the rules of responsibility. This is only to emphasis the fact that the Constitution trusts those it governs, and believes in their responsibility to protect it. 13. No freedom can be absolute. As freedom walks with its head held high, a shadow of responsibility follows it. Responsibility is the epiderm within which freedom stays free and secured - and secured for all. Constitutional responsibility belongs to this variety and exists as an invisible layer, a membrane, between the right to free speech and the reasonable restrictions that may operate on it. Remove the responsibility from all, it will be chaos. 14. Responsibility is the epiderm within which freedom stays free and secured - and secured for all. Constitutional responsibility belongs to this variety and exists as an invisible layer, a membrane, between the right to free speech and the reasonable restrictions that may operate on it. Remove the responsibility from all, it will be chaos. 14. Does not a road user, manages his space consciously for other road users - from varied walks of life - all who are socially and economically different, politically, religiously and culturally diverse, with safety for himself and safety for others? Does it not involve an element of responsibility? Should this not characterize while living ones life in co- existence with others who compete for the same public space? Constitutional responsibility associated with free speech is all about managing the public space available in common for all citizens, with the awareness that this country is a diverse country, that one's freedom should not cross the limits to infringe another's freedom and right. It will be, therefore, a shame to our Constitutionalism to suggest that the citizens ought to be under constant monitoring for ensuring that they do not stray into the zone of reasonable restrictions while they exercise their freedom of speech. On the contrary they must be told that there exists a much larger and compelling principle which requires and expects a citizen to be reasonably self restrained, self disciplined and self-regulating while exercising his freedom. He is required to remind himself, even as he exercises his freedom of free speech, that he is also under a fundamental duty to “promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women”, in terms of Article 51A(e) of the Constitution. While the Courts cannot compel a citizen to exercise his right to free speech on the Fundamental Duties, yet the court has a duty to inform him about them, and to remind him that the same can operate through self-regulation with no need for State policing. 15. It is an indisputable feature of contemporary life that free speech is often exercised with a high percentage of inadequate responsibility. Unity and amity becomes easy prey, and cynicism permeates to pollute the free space. 15. It is an indisputable feature of contemporary life that free speech is often exercised with a high percentage of inadequate responsibility. Unity and amity becomes easy prey, and cynicism permeates to pollute the free space. Is it because the Constitution which the People of this country have given themselves is yet to firm up its connect to an average citizen? What is the extent to which a laity on the street to the lords of the Secretariat (no offense or malice meant) own the Constitution? After all, anything owned is cared. Is then the Constitution consumed in hyper intellectualization? Time we introspected it. In Jagadish Sharan vs. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 820 , the immortal V.R. Krishna Iyer J. has observed: “Law, constitutional law, is not an omnipotent abstraction or distant idealization but a principled, yet pragmatic, value-laden and result-oriented, set of propositions applicable to and conditioned by a concrete stage of social development of the nation and aspirational imperatives of the people...” But people may fail to achieve the intended aspiration if the Constitution is not approached with a sense of belongingness. In his concluding remarks in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) Joseph Story says: “If these Commentaries shall but inspire in the rising generation a more ardent love of their country, an unquenchable thirst for liberty, and a profound reverence for the Constitution and the Union, then they will have accomplished all, that their author ought to desire. Let the American youth never forget that they possess (in their constitution) a noble inheritance, bought by the toils, and sufferings, and blood of their ancestors; and capable, if wisely improved, and faithfully-guarded, of transmitting to their latest posterity all the substantial blessings of life, the peaceful enjoyment of liberty, property, religion, and independence. The structure has been erected by architects of consummate skill and fidelity; its foundations are solid; its compartments are beautiful, as well as useful its arrangements are full of wisdom and order; and its defences are impregnable from without. It has been reared for immortality if the work of man may justly aspire such a title. It may, nevertheless, perish in an hour by the folly, or corruption, or negligence of its only keepers, The People... It has been reared for immortality if the work of man may justly aspire such a title. It may, nevertheless, perish in an hour by the folly, or corruption, or negligence of its only keepers, The People... They fall when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest and profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them.” This great message addressed to the American audience, has relevance to every citizen of this country. In the "Spirit of Liberty" speech (1944) Justice Learned Hand said: “Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no Constitution, no law, no court can save it; no Constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it.” Substitute "liberty" with (constitutional) responsibility, the passage will still be worthy of respect. Justice Hand proceeds to say: “And what is this liberty which must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not freedom to do as one likes. That is denial of liberty, and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few - as we have learned to our sorrow.....the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interest alongside its own without bias...” It is now mandatory for those who believe in occupying others space for free speech and existence under the Constitution to contemplate on it with a sense of belongingness to the Constitution. Time the people of this country realised that they own the Constitution, as there is an urgent need to re-orient one's belief for engineering a gravitational shift to protect Constitutionalism by We, the People. And, the responsibility rests with our intelligentsia and those who are anxious and justly concerned with the preservation of Constitutionalism to take it to those to who it belongs. 16. And, the responsibility rests with our intelligentsia and those who are anxious and justly concerned with the preservation of Constitutionalism to take it to those to who it belongs. 16. In the backdrop of what are now stated, it is now necessary to direct every authority, who while granting permission for any meetings or other events in public, to obtain a written undertaking from its organisers that he will take responsibility that none of the speakers, while they exercise their right to free speech and expression, will violate any of those aspects/heads on which the State has power to make laws under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, that he would abide by the Constitutional values, and that no picture, cartoons or caricature, poster and every form of visual depiction, depicting any religious symbols or images be used as to hurt the religious sentiments of any religious group, nor shall be put on display anything banned under the laws of India. 17. To conclude, this petition is allowed and the Order of the second respondent dated 09.02.2019 is set aside. This Court further directs the petitioner to present a fresh representation to the 2nd respondent with the names of the speakers and other related particulars along with a written undertaking: (a) That the petitioner takes responsibility that none of the speakers, while they exercise their right to free speech and expression, will violate or infringe any of those heads (on which State has made laws or has power to make laws) under Article 19(2) of the Constitution (each of them should be specifically stated) and that he would abide by the Constitutional values, and that he takes responsibility, for peaceful conduct of the meeting. (b) That no picture, cartoons, caricatures, posters, and every for of visual depiction, depicting any religious symbols other images be used in any form as to hurt the religious sentiments of any religious group, nor shall display anything banned under the laws of India. 18. Upon receipt of the said representation with the undertaking as indicated above, the 2nd respondent is required to consider the same expeditiously and in the spirit of what is indicated in this Order. In the eventuality of the 2nd respondent granting permission, he is also entitled to videograph the proceedings of the meeting to ensure that the undertaking given by the petitioner is obeyed in letter and spirit. In the eventuality of the 2nd respondent granting permission, he is also entitled to videograph the proceedings of the meeting to ensure that the undertaking given by the petitioner is obeyed in letter and spirit. If there is any violation, then the respondents are directed to prosecute the violators forthwith. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.