Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Madras High Court recently observed that in a democratic setup, it is always possible that there will be divergent views regarding a belief or an ideology. It is not possible to compel everybody to follow the same ideology and a person is always entitled to have his reservations and opinions regarding an ideology, said the court. 

A bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh emphasised that "only if there is a dialogue, there is scope for evolution in the society".

The judge observed so while dealing with a writ petition filed challenging a rejection letter passed by the Inspector of Police (Law and Order), Poonamallee Police Station, Aavadi Police District, Chennai on the petitioner's application seeking permission to conduct a meeting at Rani Marriage Hall at Poonamallee.

Petitioner Senthil Mallar had founded an organization and wanted to conduct a meeting of members of his organisation to address their views about Dravidian Ideologies.

He made a representation on August 8, 2023, to the respondent police seeking permission to conduct the meeting on August 27, and while giving the representation, it was stated by the petitioner that the meeting pertained to co-operation and togetherness of the Tamils.

However, when the representation given by the petitioner was pending before the respondent police, an objection was given by one Avadi Nagarajan on the ground that the petitioner was attempting to address an opinion against Dravidians and if the same is allowed, it would cause a law and order problem.

On receipt of this objection, the respondent police issued the impugned rejection letter refusing to grant permission to the petitioner to conduct the meeting.

Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition had been filed before the high court. 

Additional Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted before the single judge bench that the petitioner had made a request for conducting a meeting for a particular purpose and whereas, the petitioner was exceeding the brief and was attempting to conduct a meeting which will result in a law and order problem.

He contended that therefore, there was absolutely no ground to interfere with the impugned rejection letter.

Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner should have come out with a clear agenda that was going to be discussed in the meeting and should not have concealed the same.

On the other hand, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the meeting in question was only an indoor meeting and that the petitioner and his organization had the right to talk about the Dravidian Ideologies.

He asserted that the same could not be objected by the respondent police merely on an apprehension that the meeting will lead to a law and order problem.

It is the fundamental right of the petitioner and his organization to put forth their views among the like-minded persons, the counsel stressed. 

The single judge bench said that it was possible that the opinions that are expressed in the meeting may go against the majority view held in favour of the Dravidian Ideology, however, that by itself will not result in preventing the petitioner and his organization from expressing their views.

"It is now too well settled that the freedom of expression that is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India also includes freedom to hold opinions and it cannot be prevented on a mere apprehension of a law and order problem and the reasonable restriction that has been provided under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India only talks about likelihood of affecting public order," stated the bench. 

Accordingly, court set aside the impugned rejection letter while directing the petitioner to make a fresh application to  the Inspector of Police (Law and Order), Poonamallee Police Station, seeking for permission to conduct the meeting on November 1, 2023. 

"The 2nd respondent (the Inspector of Police) shall consider the same and shall grant necessary permission. It is made sufficiently clear that the no one will create a situation leading to a law and order problem," ordered the court. 

Case Title: Senthil Mallar v. The Commissioner of Police, Police Commissionerate, Avadi and Another