← Library
Madras High CourtWP/18268/2019dismissed

Mohanraj v. The Inspector Of Police

2019-07-01Honourable Mr Justice N. Anand Venkatesh3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 01.07.2019

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH W.P.No.18268 of 2019 Mohanraj ... Petitioner -VsThe Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station, Villupuram.

... Respondent Prayer:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 20.06.2019 passed by the respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to conduct a demonstration on 28.06.2019 at 04.30 p.m. or any other subsequent dates at the mentioned places..

For Petitioner : Mr.Jiim Raj Milton For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the respondent dated 20.06.2019 rejecting the permission sought for by the petitioner to conduct a protest/demonstration on 28.06.2019 at 04.30 p.m.

2. It is seen from the records that, the petitioner wants to conduct a demonstration on the ground that two persons have been illegally arrested by the police and a false criminal case has been foisted against them. It is further alleged that even the grounds of arrest or reasons for arrest was not mentioned at the time of remand. Therefore, the petitioner wanted to conduct a protest/demonstration against the alleged illegal action on the part of the police.

3. The permission sought for by the petitioner was rejected by the respondent police on the ground that it will cause

hindrance to the general public and will give rise to law and order problem and there is already a prohibition order under Section 30(2) of the Police Act.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the rejection order passed by the respondent police is illegal and that it goes against the freedom of speech and expression and the respondent police should not have denied the permission on some vague grounds.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent police submitted that the reasons assigned for conducting the protest/demonstration are on the basis of the alleged illegal criminal case registered by the police and the consequent illegal arrest. If at all the petitioner wants to question the same, it has to be questioned only before the Court and the petitioner cannot be permitted to conduct a demonstration for that purpose. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor therefore submitted that the respondent police was perfectly right in rejecting the permission sought for by the petitioner to conduct the protest/demonstration.

6. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side.

7. The petitioner wants to conduct a protest/demonstration on the ground that the respondent police have registered a false case against two persons and they were illegally arrested and produced before the concerned Magistrate. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, it is a fundamental right of a citizen guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and the same cannot be prevented by the respondent police.

8. Protest and demonstration has become a way of life in this State. This Court has already stated that protest and demonstration have become a full time profession for many youngsters in this State. There are issues for which people can protest and conduct demonstration. However, at the fall of the hat, protest is being called for and police protection is sought for. The police is already over burdened with their work and to make police to go and give protection in every place where protest is being held, will put additional burden on the police.

9. Even though, this Court was liberal in granting permission for protest and demonstration, the number seems to be increasing by the day and therefore this Court wants to understand in each and every case as to why the demonstration is going to be conducted by any person or association. This Court by being liberal in granting permission, does not want to

unwittingly become a party for encouraging unwanted protest/demonstration.

10. The purpose for which the protest is called in the present case, is totally unwarranted. It is not known as to how this protest will decide whether the case registered is false or the arrest made is illegal. These are matters that should be agitated before an appropriate forum and it cannot be taken streets.

11. This Court is of the considered view that the respondent police was perfectly right in rejecting the permission for conducting the protest/demonstration. This Court does not find any ground to interfere with the same.

12. If at all there is any false case or an illegal arrest is made against any person, it is always open to the concerned persons to challenge the same before the appropriate forum and redress their grievance. It is left open to the petitioner to adopt the said legal process.

13.In the result this Writ Petition is dismissed. No Costs. -s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS-IX) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar ssr To

1. The Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station, Villupuram.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

+1 CC to Mr.S. Parthasarathy, Advocate sr 54378. W.P.No.18268 of 2019 NMI(CO) SP(01/08/2019)