Fundamental Right to hold public meetings under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution cannot be denied merely on the apprehension of violation of law and order- Madras High Court Order

The Madras High Court ( in Arappor Iyakkam vs State of Tamil Nadu. WP NO.25998 of 2017) on 5.10.2017 held that Fundamental Right to hold public meetings under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution cannot be denied merely on the apprehension of violation of law and order 

In the present case an organization named Arappor Iyakkam intended to organize
a public meeting to address about the issue of corruption in Tamil Nadu, they had submitted a request on 11.09.2017 to the The Inspector of Police, Mylapore seeking permission to organise a public meeting in
Mylapore Mangollai on 08.10.2017 between 5 p.m. to 9 p.m.

On 30.09.2017, the ACP therein issued a show cause notice as to why permission should not be granted for conducting the said meeting. On the very next day, i.e., on 01.10.2017, the organization  has given a detailed explanation establishing their right to freedom of speech and expression and to assemble peacefully.

But when their reply was not considered in time, the organization filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court and when the matter was called, the learned Additional Advocate General produced the copy of the order dated 04.10.2017 passed by the ACP, Mylapore Range rejecting the petitioner's request for permission on the ground that the respondent police had reliable information that the applicant was trying to instigate people for creating law and order problem under the guise of organizing a meeting.


In the course of giving judgement the Court came to a finding that

"  the petitioner's request has been rejected by the respondent on two grounds namely

a)the petitioner intends to instigate people for creating law and order problems and
b)there is likelihood of law and order problem from anti social elements."

On the basis of the above findings Justice M.S. RAMESH observed that

"I do not endorse the reasoning of the respondents for rejecting the petitioner's request for the simple reason that the police department has been created only for the purpose of tackling the above problems. Since it is the fundamental right of the petitioner to conduct such a meeting, if at all, the respondent is of the view that they intend to instigate people and thereby create law and order problem, it was always open to them to permit the petitioner to conduct the meeting by imposing conditions."

Regarding the nature of condition the Court observed that

" At this juncture, it would be appropriate to point out that the restrictions should be reasonable, what is meant is that the same should not be arbitrary and take away the freedom of speech over the issue of corruption, which issue is intended to be propagated in the meeting" 

The Court also observed that

" If the respondents had apprehended that anti social elements may infiltrate with the public and indulge in anti social activities, adequate protection can be extended during the course of the meeting to ensure that such incidents are thwarted. While that being so, the rejection order may not be justified."

On the basis of the above observation the Court held that

" It is no doubt that the petitioner has a right to peacefully assemble without arms and conduct a public meeting to propagate their principles " and granted liberty to approach the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mylapore, Chennai, for permission to conduct the public meeting and on receipt of the same, the DCP shall accord necessary permission for conducting the meeting on the date requested by the petitioner by imposing reasonable restrictions.