Government pleader said the meet was really to celebrate the birthday of LTTE leader Prabhakaran
Madras high court has directed the police to grant permission to MDMK to hold a public meeting in T. Nagar subject to the usual terms and conditions that they may incorporate
Chennai: The Madras high court has directed the police to grant permission to MDMK to hold a public meeting in T. Nagar subject to the usual terms and conditions that they may incorporate. Justice V. Ramasubramanian gave the directive while allowing a petition from P Manimaran, MDMK, South Chennai district secretary. On November 8 the MDMK submitted an application to the police seeking permission to hold a public meeting at T.Nagar on November 27. Since there was no response, it filed the present petition.
When the matter came up for hearing, special government pleader I S Inbadurai raised two objections for granting permission. One relating to law and order and the other, he said though the application was purportedly for elaborating upon a conference to be held to commemorate Arignar Anna’s birthday, the real motive of the petitioner was only to speak about LTTE and its deceased leader, on the occasion of the birth anniversary of the leader of the LTTE.
Refusing to accept the objections, the judge said repeatedly this court has held that on presumption that a person was bound to violate the law, permission to hold demonstrations cannot be rejected.Government pleader argued that many political parties or other organizations who come up with petitions challenging the rejection of their request for organizing public meetings etc., do not really have absolute faith in the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and that therefore, they cannot pitch their claim on Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution.
The judge said it was seen that several organisations and political parties object to the screening of films such as “Dam 999” and “Kaththi”., and also object to the publication of books on the ground that they hurt the sentiments of someone. On such occasions, they even demand the government to curtail the fundamental right to freedom of expression of other people. But when their own applications for holding public meetings and organizing processions were rejected, they invoke Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution.
“Therefore, it is clear that no one has absolute faith in the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. People understand Article 19 (1) (a) to mean a fundamental right to freedom of their own expression and not that of others who hold a view point that cannot be tolerated by them. But unfortunately, the government and the court alone maintain consistency, the government uniformly rejecting the request of all groups and the courts allowing the request of all groups”, the judge added.
( Source : dc correspondent )
Next Story
