Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 94 (TS)

T. Uma Mahendra v. State of Telangana

2020-01-24

T.VINOD KUMAR

body2020
ORDER : T. Vinod Kumar, J. 1. IA No. 2 of 2020 in Writ Petition No. 1376 of 2020 is filed seeking amendment to the grounds in the affidavit and questioning the granting of permission by the Additional Commissioner of Police (Law and Order), Hyderabad, dated 22.01.2020 bearing No. L&O/LO2/0024/2020. 2. Having regard to the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, I.A. No. 2 of 2020 is allowed. 3. IA No. 3 of 2020 is Filed to implead the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, represented by its Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad, as respondent No. 10 in W.P. No. 1376 of 2020. 4. Having regard to the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, IA No. 3 is allowed and the proposed respondent is impleaded as respondent No. 10 in the writ petition. 5. Writ Petition No. 1376 of 2020 is filed questioning the inaction of the respondents 1 to 7 in taking necessary action in relation to the illegal and unauthorized advertisement and marketing of an alleged protest and demonstrations made by the respondents 8 and 9, as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently, to direct the respondents 1 to 7 not to grant any permission to the alleged protest and demonstration purported to be held at Charminar, Hyderabad on the midnight of 25.01.2020 by the respondents 8 and 9. 6. IA No. 1 of 2020 is filed to direct the respondents 1 to 7 not to grant any permission to the alleged protest and demonstration purported to be held at Charminar Hyderabad on the midnight of 25.01.2020 by the respondents 8 and 9 in protest against the Citizens Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC) and pass such other order or orders. 7. 7. Writ Petition No. 1538 of 2020 is filed to declare the inaction on the part of the respondents 1 to 10 in taking necessary action in relation to the illegal and unauthorized advertisements and marketing of an alleged protest and meeting made by respondents 11 and 12, as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional with a consequential direction to the respondents to take necessary action to remove such advertisements forthwith and further direct the respondents 1 to 10 not to grant any permission to the alleged protest and meeting in the name of Jashn-E-Jamuriat and Ehtejaji Mushaira (Protest Poetry Celebration) purported to be held at Khilwat Ground, adjacent to Charminar on the intervening night of 25th/26th January, 2020 in protest against the Citizens Amendment Act (CAA) and proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC). 8. IA No. 1 of 2020 in W.P. No. 1538 of 2020 is filed to direct the respondents 1 to 10 not to grant any permission to the alleged protest and meeting in the name of Jashn-E-Jamuriat and Ehtejaji Mushaira (Protest Poetry Celebration) purported to be held at Khilwat Ground, adjacent to Charminar on the intervening night of 25th/26th January, 2020 in protest against the Citizens Amendment Act (CAA) and proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC). 9. Writ Petition No. 1542 is filed to declare the permission No. L & O/LO2/0024/2020, dated 22.01.2020 granted by the 4th respondent in favour of the 12th respondent for conducting "Mushaira and meeting", near Charminar is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, with a consequential direction to the respondents to immediately take necessary action to ensure that no such procession and meetings to be held near Charminar. 10. IA No. 1 of 2020 in WP No. 1542 of 2020 is filed to suspend the permission No. L&O/LO2/0024/2020, dated 22.01.2020 granted by the 4th respondent in favour of 12th respondent for conducting "Mushaira and meeting" near Charminar. 11. For the sake of convenience, the respondents are referred to as arrayed in W.P. No. 1542 of 2020. 12. The common grievance of the petitioners in all the above writ petitions is with regard to the action of the respondent authorities in according to the permission to the respondents 8 & 9 in W.P. No. 1376 of 2020 and respondents 11 & 12 in WP Nos. 12. The common grievance of the petitioners in all the above writ petitions is with regard to the action of the respondent authorities in according to the permission to the respondents 8 & 9 in W.P. No. 1376 of 2020 and respondents 11 & 12 in WP Nos. 1538 and 1542 of 2020 for holding a public meeting on the intervening night of 25th/26th January, 2020 at the close proximity to the historic place of Charminar, Hyderabad in protest against the CAA, and NRC, as effecting their fundamental right of freedom of movement and livelihood. 13. Heard Sri Bommineni Vivekanand, T. Suj in Kumar Reddy and Sashi Kiran, learned counsel for the writ petitioners respectively and Sri S. Sharath, learned Special Government Pleader and Sri P. Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the respondent police authorities despite the petitioners making representations by bringing to their notice the threat that is perceived by the respondents, have accorded permission to the unofficial respondent Nos. 11 and 12 to hold such meeting particularly on the intervening night of 25th/26th January, 2020 without taking into consideration the fact that the entire State police machinery would be on a high alert on account of the Republic Day on the following day and also that holding of such meeting till in the midnight is in violation of their fundamental rights. 15. Further, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the challenge in three writ petitions is to the action of the official respondents in according such permission without having regard to i) timing of the protest, ii) place of protest, since the place where the unofficial respondents seek to hold a protest is communally sensitive area and in view of the recent incidents in different part of the country including a part of the State of Telangana, the petitioners who are residents of the local area apprehending the danger and threat to their life; and iii) the said protest being called for by a religious group only to incite communal tension in the area. 16. The learned counsel would submit that the said unofficial respondent Nos. 11 & 12 who had earlier obtained permission to hold such meeting on 10.01.2020 and also prior thereto had acted in clear violation of the permissions granted by the authorities. 16. The learned counsel would submit that the said unofficial respondent Nos. 11 & 12 who had earlier obtained permission to hold such meeting on 10.01.2020 and also prior thereto had acted in clear violation of the permissions granted by the authorities. The authorities having failed to control/regulate at such meeting held, has caused severe inconvenience to the common public. Thus, having regard to the past behavior of the unofficial respondents, the petitioners submit that the official respondents ought to have taken note of the above and should have refused to grant permission or ought to have directed the unofficial respondents to hold the meeting at a different place than the proposed location and on any other day. 17. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader submits that the present writ petitions are not maintainable in the manner they are filed, since, the petitioners a-e not advocating their individual cause or grievance, but are seeking to advocate the cause of a particular community and thus, the writ petitions ought to have been filed as public interest litigation and not as regular writ petitions. 18. Further, the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the apprehensions of the petitioner" on the basis of some banners and posters put up in the city as to the respondent Nos. 11 & 12 holding a public meeting and unfurling of undertaking national flag on the intervening right of 25th/26th January, 2020 is misplaced, since the 12th respondent had sought for grant of permission to hold a "Mushaira and Public Meeting" on the night of 25th January, 2020, which is initially considered and granted by the Additional Commissioner of Police (Law and Order) on 22.01.2020 to hold such Mushaira and public meeting near Charminar on 25.01.2020 in connection with the protest against CAA, NRC and NPR. 19. The learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the grant of such permission by the 4th respondent was subject to condition that: organizer shall take permission for conducting "Mushaira and Public Meeting", near Charminar monument from GHMC authorities on account of the Charminar being a heritage structure. In the absence of such permission being obtained, it was made clear that the permission granted by the police authorities shall be deemed to be void. 20. In the absence of such permission being obtained, it was made clear that the permission granted by the police authorities shall be deemed to be void. 20. The learned Special Government Pleader by drawing the attention of this Court to the other conditions imposed while granting permission would submit that the respondent authorities have taken due care to ensure safety and security to the citizens by taking necessary precaution to avoid any untoward incident. Further, the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that by communication dated 23.01.2020, the 4th respondent authority has withdrawn the permission granted to the 12th respondent for holding such "Mushaira and Public Meeting", near Charminar on 25.01.2020 in view of prevailing scenario and developments and fresh inputs. By withdrawing such permission, the authorities have directed the respondent No. 12 to hold such Mushaira and Public Meeting at Khilwat Ground, since many large public meetings have taken place in that ground. While, withdrawing the earlier permission granted and directing the 12th respondent to hold such Mushaira and Public Meeting at a different place, the authorities have reiterated the conditions imposed earlier while issuing permission dated 22.01.2020, as being made applicable for the permission now granted and further made it clear that organizers should observe such conditions scrupulously. 21. The learned Special Government Pleader has placed before this Court a copy of the earlier permission dated 22.01.2020 along with the conditions stipulated therein and the revised permission dated 23.01.2020. 22. The learned Special Government Pleader in so far as the claim of the petitioner with regard to the respondent Nos. 11 & 12 holding a public meeting and hoisting of flag on the intervening night of 25th/26th January, 2020 is concerned, would submit that the said unofficial respondents sought permission for only holding "Mushaira and Public Meeting" on 25th January wherein there is no mention with regard to hoisting of any flag at the midnight. Further, since the permission sought is for "Mushaira and Public Meeting" only people of literary interest would be attending such event and for the said reason, the authorities have restricted the gathering not to exceed 3,000 in all. 23. The learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the official respondent authorities can not be called upon to monitor the marketing being carried contrary to the application filed seeking permission. 23. The learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the official respondent authorities can not be called upon to monitor the marketing being carried contrary to the application filed seeking permission. The learned Special Government Pleader would further submit that the authorities would ensure the organizers adhere to the permission granted in relation to the Mushaira and Public Meeting at the venue specified and upon the breach thereto, necessary action in accordance with law would be taken. 24. Learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the State authorities would endeavour to do all that is required to ensure the safety and security to the citizens by deploying the necessary force. Thus, the learned Special Government Pleader submits that no interference is required with regard to the proposed event. 25. Further, when this Court enquired from the Special Government Pleader as to whether the State authorities are in receipt of any security advisories from the Ministry of Home Affairs with regard to the Republic day on 26.01.2020, the learned Special Government Pleader submits that such alerts were received and the State authorities have discussed the same with the central agencies. Learned Special Government Pleader submits that the State police authorities have engaged special branch, CID, Task Force, and other agencies of State police to ascertain the ground situation and thereafter only the venue has been changed to ensure the safety and security to the citizens. Learned Special Government Pleader submits that the organisers were told in no uncertain terms to adhere to the number of people permitted to take part at the said Mushaira and the public meeting and the speakers who would address the gathering. 26. Having given due consideration to the submissions made and perusing the copies of the permissions granted to the unofficial respondents with regard to the above 'Mushaira and public meeting', it is to be seen that, though the authorities claim that such permission has been sought for holding the said event. on 25.01.2020, neither the permission granted on 22.01.2020 nor the subsequent permission dated 23.01.2020 with regard to change of the said event indicate the time during which such event is to be held. Further, the condition imposed in the permission granted does not specify the noise limit and it only states that noise level shall not exceed the prescribed norms as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court orders, without specifying what are the prescribed norms. Further, the condition imposed in the permission granted does not specify the noise limit and it only states that noise level shall not exceed the prescribed norms as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court orders, without specifying what are the prescribed norms. Though the permission granted mentions that no provocative speech/slogan which can hurt the feelings of any section of the public, shall be spoken, raised or displayed during the said programme, the permission granted is silent with regard to the number of speakers who are permitted to speak at such programme. 27. In so far as the holding of public meeting is concerned, although Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India guarantees fundamental right of every citizen to hold peaceful assembly or. procession, the same is not absolute right and such right can be curtailed by imposition of reasonable restrictions in the interest of law and order and the general public. It is to be seen that while Article 19(1)(b) guarantees to hold peaceful assembly or procession as a fundamental right, Article 19(1)(d) also guarantees a fundamental right of every citizen to move freely throughout the territory of India. Further, Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees fundamental right to livelihood. Which interpreting the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramleela Maidan Incident, In re. (2012) 5 SCC 1 observed that "an individual is entitled to sleep as comfortably and as freely as he breathes. Sleep is essential for a human being to maintain the delicate balance of health necessary for its very existence and survival Sleep is, therefore, a fundamental and basic requirement without which the existence of life itself would be in peril To disturb sleep, therefore, would amount to torture which is now accepted as a violation of human right." 28. As the permission accorded by the official respondents for holding a Mushaira and a public meeting does not specify any time by which such Mushaira/public meeting is required to an end, the apprehension of the petitioner that holding such a meeting into the late hours would affect his right of having a sleep on account of the large conglomeration of people now recognised as a fundamental right. Further, with regard to the specification of the noise levels that are required to be maintained at the said place of meeting, the mere mention in the permission granted that they shall not exceed the prescribed norms as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court orders, without indicating as to what are such norms, the authorities are only giving a scope for the organisers to resort to manipulations and violate the said condition. 29. Having regard to the non-mentioning of the hours of holding of such meeting, as well as the noise limits and the number of persons who are permitted to speak thereat clearly indicates lackadaisical approach on the part of the authorities in according the above permission. Omission of such crucial aspect in granting permission on the part of the authorities would only show, that either the authorities acted under pressure or wanted to do favour to the organisers. 30. Further, this Court is also required to take judicial notice of the fact that the unofficial respondents (R-11 and R-12) had on earlier occasion obtained permission from the respondent authorities to hold a meeting in relation to protest against CAA, NRC and NPR and has violated the conditions of such permission granted by resorting to mobilization of public to take part in the said meeting, as a result of which, the right of free movement of the other citizens has been adversely affected and caused huge undue inconvenience to the public at large. 31. Further, when enquired by this Court as to the time a public meeting is permitted to be held, learned Special Government Pleader would submit that in normal course a public meeting is required to be ended by 9:00 p.m. However, considering that the event for which permission has been granted being a 'Mushaira and public meeting', the same may be permitted upto 11:00 p.m. with further time for the people to disburse. The said submission of the learned Special Government Pleader would not impress upon this Court to accept the same for the reason that when a public meeting is required to be concluded by 9:00 p.m. there is no reason to deviate from such a practice as made applicable for public meeting, whereat also cultural events would precede such public meeting. The said submission of the learned Special Government Pleader would not impress upon this Court to accept the same for the reason that when a public meeting is required to be concluded by 9:00 p.m. there is no reason to deviate from such a practice as made applicable for public meeting, whereat also cultural events would precede such public meeting. If such a deviation is made merely on account of a programme in the name of 'Mushaira' being prefixed to such meeting, the same would be taken advantage to hereafter, which will only result in violation of the right of an individual to have a peaceful living into the late hours of the day after having worked for livelihood through the day and also right to free movement through the day. 32. In this regard it is useful to refer to the observations made by the Calcutta High Court in Rituparna Sarkar Dutta v. The State of West Bengal AIR 2018 Cal. 197 wherein the Calcutta High Court observed as under: "No citizen or group of citizens can exercise one fundamental right so as to adversely affect or impairing upon some other fundamental right of another citizen. Thus, it cannot be gainsaid that the right to hold peaceful assembly/rally/procession cannot be exercised in a manner which would curtail other persons' rights to free movement and right to livelihood." 33. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court while dealing with the steps taken by the administration in relation to political meeting/processions observed thus: "We have noted the steps that the administration claims are taken on the days of political meetings/rallies/processions to ameliorate the problems faced by the general people. We are of the view that if such measures are sincerely implemented and seriously adhered to, as they should be, the inconvenience caused to the public would be minimized and the hardship faced by them should be mitigated to an appreciable extent." 34. We are of the view that if such measures are sincerely implemented and seriously adhered to, as they should be, the inconvenience caused to the public would be minimized and the hardship faced by them should be mitigated to an appreciable extent." 34. Having regard to the above and considering the fact that the permission granted by the respondent authorities are falling short of certain basic conditions that are required to be mentioned, this Court is of the view that in addition to the conditions mentioned in the permission dated 22.01.2020 as made applicable to the permission dated 23.01.2020, the following additional conditions are required to be made applicable to the above permission granted, (1) The event of 'Mushaira and public meeting' at Khilwat ground for which the respondent authorities granted permission to be held on 25.01.2020, shall be held between 6:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. and the participants at the said event shall disburse thereafter by 9:30 p.m from the venue. The respondent police shall ensure that the entire ground be emptied within such time by disbursing the public taking part in the event. (2). Since, it is claimed that the place of event being adjacent to a historical protected monument i.e., Chowmahalla palace, the authorities shall ensure the noise level to be maintained at the said event is 55db which is prescribed ambient noise level as per the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, with an incremental increase of 10 db (A) of the ambient, noise standard. They shall take assistance of the concerned pollution control department authorities to measure the sound level during the entire period of event. The respondent authorities shall ensure that no loud speakers are played after 9:00 p.m. i.e., the time permitted for holding the event 'Mushaira and public meeting'. (3). As the permission accorded also does not specify as to the number of speakers who would be addressing at the said event, though a submission is made by the learned Special Government Pleader that the authorities have in uncertain terms informed the organisers as to the number of speakers, the permission does not indicate any such number being specified. Learned Special Government Pleader would submit the speakers at the event could be between 10 to 15. Learned Special Government Pleader would submit the speakers at the event could be between 10 to 15. However, considering the fact that this Court is specifying the time period for holding such event, this Court is of the view that the number of speakers who are permitted to speak thereat is required to be restricted to six in number. The organisers shall furnish a list of names of the speakers who would be addressing at the said event to the respondent authorities, not later than two hours before commencement of the event. (4). In addition to the above, this Court is of the view that since, on an earlier occasion, the unofficial respondent Nos. 11 and 12 in W.P. No. 1542 of 2020 has breached conditions by not adhering to the number of participants, this Court is of the view that the authorities shall erect barricades at all the entry points at the venue to ensure at no point of time, the number of people taking part in the event does not exceed 3000 as mentioned in the condition No. 20 of the permission granted. In the event if the organisers fail to adhere to the said condition, the authorities shall forth with take steps to stop the event then and there itself and shall not allow the event to proceed further. (5). The respondent police authorities are further directed to have the entire event video graphed. 35. The above additional conditions imposed by this Court are only supplementary to the conditions imposed and this order would not preclude the respondent authorities from imposing any additional condition that may be required on the day of event as the situation demands. 36. In the event of breach of any of the above conditions, the authorities shall initiate necessary action against the organisers as well as the offenders by initiating criminal cases in accordance with the provisions of law and ensure that the same are carried to their logical conclusion. 37. 36. In the event of breach of any of the above conditions, the authorities shall initiate necessary action against the organisers as well as the offenders by initiating criminal cases in accordance with the provisions of law and ensure that the same are carried to their logical conclusion. 37. Further, the 2nd respondent in all the Writ Petitions being the Director General of Police, who is the Head of the entire State police of the department, shall ensure that the conditions imposed while according permission and also additional conditions that are being imposed now by this Court are strictly adhered to by the respective authorities of the department and shall file compliance report along with the video recording of the event and the certificate from the pollution control board authorities with regard to the noise level at the event during the period of event as recorded by the said department on or before 07.02.2020, It is also made clear that the 2nd respondent authority is responsible for ensuring compliance with the order of this Court. 38. Post the matter under the caption 'for reporting compliance' on 10.02.2020 at 2:30 p.m.