Read Time: 07 minutes

Single Bench of Justice R. Hemalatha of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has recently quashed the order passed by Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thilagar Thidal (Law and Order) Range, Madurai City rejecting the petitioner’s request of conducting general awareness campaign regarding Sri Rama Temple in Ayodhya.

“The main contention of the petitioner is that he is the District Convener of “Sri Rama Jenma Boomi Theertha Kshethra Trust” and that he wants to conduct an awareness campaign in and around Madurai. It is pertinent to point out that “Sri Rama” is very close to the heart of the religious sentiments of Hindus and when people are allowed inside the movie halls, malls and other public places stipulating the basic safety measures like wearing masks and using hands sanitiser, I do not find any reason to validate the official stance taken by the second respondent in this matter”, the Bench noted.

In the present matter, the petitioner, District Convener of Sri Rama Janma Bhoomi Theertha Kshetra Trust formed for creating awareness among the general public and also for the construction of “Sri Rama Temple in Ayodhya” on 13.02.2021 filed a petition before the first respondent seeking permission to conduct awareness campaign through a Van bearing Registration No.TN-58- AP-3505 in and around Madurai. On 18.02.2021, the second respondent rejected the petitioner’s request citing the present CoVID 19 situation and present law and order problem. Thus, the petitioner filed a petition praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.26/21, dated 18.02.2021 of the second respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to grant permission for the petitioner to conduct awareness campaign.

Petitioner’s first contention was that the permission was granted by the Government to various political and social organizations to conduct the conference and public meetings but in his case, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thilagar Thidal (Law and Order) Range, Madurai City denied permission. He also contended that the police also restrained the movement of a vehicle bearing Registration Number TN-58-AP-3505.

Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand contended that since the Assistant Commissioner of Police did not have jurisdiction over all the 100 wards of Madurai and was thus not empowered to grant permission to the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner should have filed a petition before the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City Police.

The Bench after hearing Ld Counsels observed that it was stated nowhere that the Assistant Commissioner of Police did not have powers to pass orders and if he found so, he should have instead of rejecting the permission forwarded the same to the Commissioner of police. Further, the Bench noted that the order also did not state how there would be a law and order problem if the petitioner was permitted to take his van in and around Madurai.

Thus the Court while quashing the order dated 18.02.2021 directed for the immediate release of the vehicle. Court further directed the first respondent/Commissioner of Police, Madurai City to pass appropriate orders on the representation submitted by the petitioner since the second respondent contended that he did not have any power to pass orders.

“The concerned authorities should not have restrained the movement of the petitioner's vehicle. This action appears to be high handed. On the other hand, they should have allowed the procession after imposing certain restrictions.”, the Court also observed.

Case Title: N.Selvakumar v. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai

Access Copy of Judgment