Madras HC Says Everyone has the right to their own opinions in a democratic system, One cannot compel others to adhere to the same ideology.
TITLE: Senthil Malla Vs. The Commissioner of Police and another.
Decided On: September 5, 2023.
W.P.No.25907 of 2023 and W.M.P.No.25350 of 2023.
CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh.
Facts:
The petitioner is the founder of an organization who wanted to conduct a meeting at Rani Marriage Hall at Poonamallee. In the said meeting, the organizers wanted to address their views about Dravidian Ideologies. Accordingly, a representation was made by the petitioner on 08.08.2023 to the respondent police seeking for permission to conduct the meeting on 27.08.2023. While giving the representation, it was stated by the petitioner that the meeting pertained to co-operation and togetherness of the Tamils. 4.When the representation given by the petitioner was pending before the respondent police, an objection seems to have been given by one Avadi Nagarajan on the ground that the petitioner is attempting to address an opinion against Dravidians and if the same is allowed, it will cause a law and order problem. On receipt of this objection, the respondent police issued the impugned rejection letter dated 27.08.2023, refusing to grant permission to the petitioner to conduct the meeting. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.
Legal Analysis and Decision:
The court was hearing a challenge against a rejection letter issued by the Inspector of Police (Law and Order) denying permission to one Senthil Mallar to conduct a meeting to address views about Dravidian ideologies. Mallar had submitted that his organization wanted to conduct a meeting wherein the organizers wanted to address their views about Dravidian Ideologies. He informed the court that he had made representations on August 8, 2023 to the police seeking permission and while the representation was pending, an objection was given by one Avadi Nagarjan on the ground that Mallar was attempting to address an opinion against Dravidians which would cause a law and order problem. In view of this objection, the police issued the rejection letter refusing to grant permission to conduct the meeting. The Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand informed the court that Mallar had made a request for conducting meeting for a particular purpose but was exceeding that brief and was attempting to conduct a meeting which would cause law and order problem. The prosecutor added that Mallar should have come out with a clear agenda which was going to be discussed in the meeting and should not have concealed the same. The court noted that while it was possible that the opinions expressed in the meeting would go against the majority view held in favour of the Dravidian Ideology, that by itself would not result in preventing Mallar and his organisation from expressing their views.
Conclusion:
The Court finally stated that no one in a democratic country may be forced to share a specific ideology. Everyone is free to express their concerns and ideas on a given ideology. The court set aside the rejection letter issued by the police and asked Mallar to make a fresh application seeking permission. The court also directed the police to consider the same and grant necessary permission.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.