Subscribe
Follow TNM's WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
The Madras High Court, on Monday, August 17, orally observed that the police should not concern themselves with the content of a protest and should provide protection unless it requires placing restrictions on the freedom of speech, contemplated under the Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
Article 19(2) allows the government to set reasonable limits on the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.
Justice V Lakshminarayanan made the observation while hearing a plea filed by Dravida Kazhagam, challenging the state's refusal to grant permission for a bike rally against the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) and Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) reservation.
During the hearing, Public Prosecutor John Sathyan submitted that the state was not opposed to the issues being raised through the rally. He pointed out that the Tamil Nadu Assembly had itself passed a resolution against NEET.
However, when the prosecutor raised concerns about the inclusion of the EWS reservation issue in the proposed rally, the court orally observed that the state should not be concerned with the subject matter of the protest. “The content of the protest is none of the police's concern. Tomorrow they might want to protest for Hormus. Your job is to give protection. As long as it doesn't fall under Article 19(2), you've to give permission,” the court remarked.
The prosecutor clarified that the state was only seeking logistical details, including the venue, the number of bikes and the proposed route, so that adequate police bandobast could be arranged.
He submitted that if the petitioners furnished these details through a fresh application, the state was willing to consider it and grant permission.
The court consequently directed Dravida Kazhagam to furnish the required details by the following day and adjourned the matter.
When the issue came up before the court in an earlier hearing it questioned the state on why permission for the bike rally could not be granted. The court had observed that the organisation was merely exercising its right to ride bikes and was not engaging in any anti-social activity.
When the state expressed apprehension about possible untoward incidents, the court observed that rather than suppressing citizens the rally should be permitted.
Dravida Kazhagam Vice President Kali Poongundran approached the High Court after the police denied permission for the proposed rally.
The party contended that it had a constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression and to assemble peacefully and without arms under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution. It argued that denying permission to propagate its views against NEET and EWS reservation was contrary to these constitutional guarantees.
The party submitted that, in view of recent developments, it had decided to campaign against NEET and EWS reservation in Tamil Nadu.
The prosecutor had also argued that the NEET issue had become infructuous since the examination had already been conducted and counselling was scheduled to commence.
The judge, however, orally observed that the state could not dictate the manner in which the petitioners should protest.
