The Madras High Court recently made an observation, stating that in a democratic setting, it is natural for divergent views to exist concerning beliefs or ideologies. The court emphasized that it is not feasible to enforce unanimity in ideology, and every individual retains the right to hold reservations and express opinions regarding any particular ideology.
The single-headed bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh held that "only if there is a dialogue, there is scope for evolution in the society".
The Court made this observation while addressing a writ petition that challenged a rejection letter issued by the Inspector of Police (Law and Order) at Poonamallee Police Station, Aavadi Police District in Chennai. The petition sought permission to hold a meeting at Rani Marriage Hall in Poonamallee.
Petitioner Senthil Mallar had established an organization and sought permission to conduct a meeting for its members. The purpose of this meeting was to facilitate discussions and share views regarding Dravidian ideologies.
On August 8, 2023, petitioner Senthil Mallar submitted a representation to the respondent police, requesting permission to hold a meeting on August 27. In the representation, the petitioner stated that the meeting aimed to promote cooperation and unity among Tamils.
However, while the petitioner's representation was under review by the respondent police, Avadi Nagarajan raised an objection. Nagarajan's objection was based on the belief that the petitioner intended to express views against Dravidians during the meeting, and allowing such an event could potentially lead to law and order issues.
Upon receiving the objection from Avadi Nagarajan, the respondent police subsequently issued a rejection letter, denying the petitioner's request for permission to hold the meeting.
Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition had been filed before the high court.
The Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent, argued before the Court that the petitioner had initially requested permission for a specific purpose. However, the petitioner's intentions had apparently expanded beyond the stated purpose, and the proposed meeting was now seen as likely to lead to a law and order issue. Consequently, the prosecutor asserted that there were no valid grounds to challenge or overturn the rejection letter issued by the authorities.
The Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the petitioner should have presented a clear and transparent agenda for the meeting, rather than concealing it. On the other hand, the petitioner's counsel contended that the meeting was intended to be an indoor gathering and emphasized the petitioner's organization's right to discuss Dravidian ideologies.
The single judge bench expressed the view that it was conceivable that the opinions voiced during the meeting might diverge from the prevailing majority viewpoint in favor of the Dravidian ideology. However, the bench emphasized that this alone should not justify preventing the petitioner and his organization from expressing their views. In other words, the bench emphasized the importance of upholding freedom of expression and allowing diverse opinions to be heard, even if they differed from the prevailing consensus.
"It is now too well settled that the freedom of expression that is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India also includes freedom to hold opinions and it cannot be prevented on a mere apprehension of a law and order problem and the reasonable restriction that has been provided under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India only talks about likelihood of affecting public order," stated the bench.
"The 2nd respondent (the Inspector of Police) shall consider the same and shall grant necessary permission. It is made sufficiently clear that the no one will create a situation leading to a law and order problem," ordered the court.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy