Full Judgment Text
1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 4163 OF 2023
K. PHANINDRA REDDY, I.A.S. AND ORS. …PETITIONER (S)
VERSUS
G. SUBRAMANIAN …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)…………………………….of 2023
(Arising out of D.NO. 10656 OF 2023)
J U D G M E N T
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
1. Delay condoned in Special leave Petition (Civil) @ D.No.10656
of 2023.
2. While the first special leave petition arises out of an order
passed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in an intra-
court appeal challenging an order passed by the learned Judge in a
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
POOJA SHARMA
Date: 2023.04.11
16:04:48 IST
Reason:
contempt petition, the other special leave petitions arise out of the
order passed substantially in a writ petition and in a review
petition.
2
3. We have heard Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners in all the special leave petitions and
Shri Mahesh Jethmalani, Shri Guru Krishna Kumar, Dr. Menaka
Guruswamy, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent.
4.
The brief facts sufficient for the disposal of all these special
leave petitions are as follows:-
(i) A batch of 49 writ petitions were filed by the office
bearers of the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS), on
the file of the High Court of Judicature at Madras seeking
a direction to the State, the Director General of Police, the
Superintendents of Police of various districts and the
Inspectors of Police of certain police stations to permit the
members of the Organisation to conduct a procession
(Route March) through identified places. The contention
of the writ petitioners was that they wanted to hold the
procession on 02.10.2022, but that their applications for
permission to hold the Route March were not considered
by the appropriate authorities;
(ii) The batch of writ petitions were disposed of by a learned
Judge of the Madras High Court, by an order dated
22.09.2022, with certain directions;
(iii) The State filed a batch of applications for review. At about
the same time, one of the representations seeking
permission to hold the march in Chennai was rejected by
3
the local Inspector of Police, by an order dated
27.09.2022;
(iv) The order of rejection led to a legal notice dated
28.09.2022 followed by a Contempt Petition, against,
(i) The Secretary to Government, Home Department; (ii)
The Director General of Police; (iii) The Superintendent of
Police; and (iv ) The Inspector of Police;
(v) When the contempt petition came up for hearing on
30.09.2022, the date on which the organisers wanted to
conduct the Route March was only 48 hours away.
Therefore, the learned Judge before whom the contempt
petition came up, passed an order on 30.09.2022 to the
following effect:-
“5. Hence, the respondents justified the
reasons for rejecting the request made by the
petitioners. Therefore, it is not possible for the
respondents to grant permission for the
procession to be held on 02.10.2022. However,
this Court suggested for any other date except
Gandhi Jayanthi i.e. 02.10.2022 to conduct
procession and to conduct public meeting.
6. The learned Senior Counsels appearing for
the petitioners suggested four dates i.e.
09.10.2022, 16.10.2022, 06.11.2022 and
13.11.2022 and the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the first respondent submitted that
except Gandhi Jayanthi on 02.10.2022, they will
consider the same representations of the
respective petitioners seeking permission to
conduct procession and to conduct public
meetings on any other date.
7. Considering the above submissions made
on either side, this Court fix the date to conduct
procession and to conduct public meetings on
4
06.11.2022. Till then, the petitioners are directed
not to precipitate the issue. However, it is for the
State to maintain law and order problem. It is
made clear that the respondents shall permit the
petitioners on their earlier representations to
conduct procession and to conduct public
meetings on 06.11.2022.
8. Registry is directed to list the matter along
with all the connected contempt petitions
numbered subsequently on 31.10.2022”
(vi) Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 30.09.2022, the
Director General of Police issued a memorandum dated
29.10.2022 instructing Commissioners/Superintendents
of Police of the Districts to pass necessary orders on the
representations of the organisers;
(vii) In the light of the memorandum issued by The Director
General of Police on 29.10.2022, the learned Judge before
whom the contempt petitions came up on 31.10.2022,
passed an order to the following effect:-
“The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner produced the order passed by the second
respondent viz., the Director General of Police, dated
29.10.2022, thereby directing all the Commissioner of
Police/Superintendent of Police, to pass order on the
applications made by the respective petitioners in
accordance with the order passed by this Court dated
22.09.2022 in W.P.No.24540 of 2022 etc., batch.
Accordingly all the applications submitted by the
petitioners are under consideration of the respective
Commissioner of Police/Superintendent of Police and
they are about to pass orders within a day or two.
2. Post the matter on 02.11.2022 under the
caption “for reporting compliance” at 2.15 p.m.
(viii) On 02.11.2022, the Staff Officer in the Office of the
Director General of Police filed a status report claiming
5
that in view of certain developments that took place after
a cylinder blast in Coimbatore City on 23.10.2022, a
fresh assessment of the local situation had to be made by
the Commissioners/Superintendents of Police. In short,
the status report indicated that, (i) it is not advisable to
permit any processions/public meetings in 24 locations;
(ii) that processions/public meetings can be permitted in
23 locations only in enclosed ground/premises; and
(iii) procession can be permitted in three locations;
(ix) Incidentally, the contempt petitions as well as the
applications for review were listed before the learned
Judge on the very same date namely 02.11.2022. The
learned Judge passed two independent orders, one in the
batch of contempt petitions and another in the batch of
review applications;
(x) The relevant portion of the order passed in the review
applications reads as follows:-
“3. Today when the matters are taken up for hearing,
the learned State Public Prosecutor appearing for the
petitioners submitted that out of 50 places, in three
places, the respective respondents were granted
permission to conduct procession and public meeting
on 06.11.2022. Insofar as 23 places are concerned,
respective respondents are permitted to conduct
procession/public meeting in an indoor place. Insofar
as 24 places are concerned, respective authorities
found that there will be a law and order issue and
rejected the requests in view of the intelligence report
received from the authorities concerned. He further
submitted that the respective respondents also
approached this Court by way of Contempt Petitions
and same are pending before this Court.
4. In view of the various orders passed by the
authorities concerned, nothing survive in these Review
6
Applications. Accordingly, all the Review Applications
are closed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petitions are also closed .
(xi) But in the batch of contempt petitions, the learned Judge
passed an order adjourning the contempt petitions to
04.11.2022, for passing appropriate orders after perusing
the Intelligence Report produced by the State in a sealed
cover;
(xii) On 04.11.2022 the learned Judge passed final orders in
the contempt petitions, virtually modifying the original
order passed on 22.09.2022. The operative portion of the
Order passed on 04.11.2022 passed in the batch of
contempt petitions reads as follows:
“9. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant
permission to conduct procession and public meeting
on 06.11.2022 on the following conditions:-
i. The procession and public meetings should be
conducted in a compounded premises such as
Ground or Stadium. It is made clear that while
proceeding to conduct procession and public
meeting, the participants shall go by walk or by their
respective vehicles without causing any hindrance to
the general public and traffic.
ii. During the program, nobody shall either sing
songs or speak ill on any individuals, any caste,
religion, etc.,
iii. Those who participate in the program shall not
for any reason talk or express anything in favour of
organizations banned by Government of India. They
should also not indulge in any act disturbing the
sovereignty and integrity of our country.
iv. The program should be conducted without
causing any hindrance to public or traffic.
v. The participants shall not bring any stick, lathi
or weapon that may cause injury to any one.
7
vi. The organizer(s) shall make adequate
arrangements for drinking water and proper First
Aid/Ambulance/Mobile Toilets/CCTV Cameras/Fire
Fighting equipments etc., in consultation with the
Police/Civic/Local Bodies as directed by the police.
vii. The organizer(s) shall keep sufficient
volunteers to help the police for regulation of traffic
and the participants.
viii. Only box type speakers should be used and
output of the speakers should not exceed 15
watts~ad within a radius of 30 meters only. Cone
Speakers should not be used at any cost.
ix. In the procession, the processionists shall not
by any manner offend the sentiments of any
religious, linguistics, cultural and other groups.
x. An undertaking to reimburse the cost for any
damage that may occur enroute to any
public/private property and an undertaking to bear
the compensation/replacement costs as well, if are to
be awarded to any other institution/person, who may
apply for the same.
xi. If there is violation of any one of the conditions
imposed, the concerned police officer is at liberty to
take necessary action, as per law.”
(xiii) Aggrieved by the order so passed by the learned Judge on
04.11.2022 in the batch of contempt petitions, a batch of
intra-court appeals were filed by the organizers. These
intra-court appeals were allowed by a Division Bench of
the High Court by an order dated 10.02.2023. The
operative portion of the order of the Division Bench reads
as follows:-
“33. In the result, the order dated 04.11.2022
passed in the contempt petitions, which is under
challange in the present LPAs, is set aside, and
the order dated 22.09.2022 passed in the writ
petitions stand restored and would be
enforceable. As the dates on which the appellants
8
wanted to conduct the route-march, have passed,
it is only appropriate that a direction be issued in
this regard. Accordingly, the appellants are
directed to approach the State authorities with
three different dates of their choice for the
purpose of holding the route-march/peaceful
procession and the State authorities are directed
to grant permission to the appellants on one of
the chosen dates out of the three. The
organization shall ensure that strict discipline is
followed at their end and that there is no
provocation or incitement on their part. The State
on the other hand has to take adequate safety
measures and make traffic arrangements to
ensure that the procession and the meeting shall
go on peacefully.”
(xiv) Challenging the order of the Division Bench passed in the
intra-court appeals arising out of the order passed in the
contempt petitions, the Secretary to Government, Home
Department, the Director General of Police, the
Commissioner of Police and the Inspector of Police first
came up with a special leave petition in Special Leave
Petition (C) No.4163 of 2023. When this special leave
petition came up for orders as to admission on
03.03.2023, it was submitted by Shri Mukul Rohatgi,
learned senior counsel and Shri V. Krishnamurthy,
learned AAG for the State of Tamil Nadu that the State
would come up with some suggestions as to how best to
resolve the issue. Therefore, Special Leave Petition (C)
No.4163 of 2023 was adjourned to 17.03.2023.
(xv) Subsequently, the State filed the other special leave
petitions challenging the earliest order of the learned
Judge of the High Court dated 22.09.2022 passed in the
batch of writ petitions as well as the order dated
9
02.11.2022 passed by the learned Judge in the batch of
review applications.
(xvi) Thus we have on hand, three special leave petitions, the
first one arising out of the last order, namely, that of the
Division Bench of the High Court dated 10.02.2023 and
the other two special leave petitions arising out of the
earlier orders of the learned Single Judge dated
22.09.2022 and 02.11.2022.
5. Insofar as the first special leave petition is concerned, it arises
out of the order of the Division Bench passed in a batch of intra-
court appeals challenging the order passed by the learned Judge in
a batch of contempt petitions. This Court need not even go into
several aspects argued across the Bar, for the simple reason that
the learned Judge travelled beyond the scope of a contempt petition
and this is why the said order warranted interference by the
Division Bench. After having disposed of the batch of main writ
petitions by a final order dated 22.09.2022 in a particular manner
and after having dismissed the batch of review applications on
02.11.2022, the learned Judge could not have modified his original
order dated 22.09.2022 in a batch of contempt petitions on
04.11.2022. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court was
justified in interfering with the order of the learned Judge. On this
10
short ground, Special Leave Petition (C) No.4163 of 2023 deserves
to be dismissed.
6. Coming to the other special leave petitions, the same arise out
of the original order passed by the learned Judge on 22.09.2022 in
the batch of writ petitions and the order dated 02.11.2022 passed
in the batch of review applications. A perusal of the order of the
learned Judge shows that the learned Judge considered the scope
of Sections 41 and 41A of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888 and
Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861, to come to the conclusion that
the reliefs sought in the writ petitions deserved to be granted
subject to certain conditions. The operative portion of the order
dated 22.09.2022 reads as follows:
“11. In view of the above order passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as
various orders passed by this Court, it would be
appropriate to direct the respondents to grant
permission to conduct procession and to conduct
public meeting on 02.10.2022 at various places
subject to the following conditions on or before
28.09.2022:-
i. During the program, nobody shall either
sign songs or speak ill on any individuals,
any caste, religion, etc.,
ii. Those who participate in the program shall
not for any reason talk or express anything
in favour of organizations banned by
Government of India. They should also not
indulge in any act disturbing the
sovereignty and integrity of our country.
11
iii. The program should be conducted without
causing any hindrance to public or traffic.
iv. The participants shall not bring any stick,
lathi or weapon that may cause injury to
any one.
v. The organizer(s) shall make adequate
arrangements for drinking water and
proper First Aid/Ambulance/Mobile
Toilets/CCTV Cameras/ Fire Fighting
equipments etc., in consultation with the
Police/Civic/Local Bodies as directed by
the police.
vi. The procession shall proceed in any orderly
manner along the sanctioned route keeping
to the left and shall not halt on the way or
cause impediment to the normal flow of
traffic. The procession shall occupy only
one-fourth of the road.
vii. The organizer(s) shall keep sufficient
volunteers to help the police for regulation
of traffic and the participants.
viii. The organizer(s) of procession/rally shall be
responsible for ensuring that the route
permitted to them by the Police Authorities
is strictly followed.
ix. Only box type speakers should be used
and output of the speakers should not
exceed 15 watts ad within a radius of 30
meters only. Cone Speakers should not be
used at any cost.
x. In the procession, the processionists shall
not any manner offend the sentiments of
any religious, linguistics, cultural and other
groups.
xi. An undertaking to reimburse the cost for
any damage that may occur enroute to any
public/private property and an
undertaking to bear the
compensation/replacement costs as well, if
12
are to be awarded to any other
institution/person, who may apply for the
same.
xii. If there is violation of any one of the
conditions imposed, the concerned police
officer is at liberty to take necessary action,
as per law.”
7. The learned Judge not only interpreted the relevant provisions
of the law correctly but also imposed necessary conditions. This is
why the learned Judge could not review his own order.
8.
It is to be noted that the learned Judge in fact followed several
similar orders passed by the other Judges of the same High Court
including one of us ( V. Ramasubramanian, J. as he then was at the
Madras High Court) in the past.
9. As rightly contended by all the learned senior counsel on the
side of the respondent, the main objection raised by the State before
the High Court was that after the imposition of a ban order on
another organization, law and order problems cropped up in certain
places and that the same led to several cases being registered. The
details of those cases are actually furnished in the memorandum of
grounds of special leave petition(s). We do not wish to extract in this
order, the Chart provided by the State in Ground No.BB of Special
Leave Petition (C) No.4163 of 2023, on account of its sensitivities.
But the Chart provided by the State Government shows that the
13
members of the respondent organization were the victims in many
of those cases and that they were not the perpetrators. Therefore, it
is not possible for us to find fault with the order passed by the
learned Judge either in the main writ petitions or in the review
applications. Hence all the special leave petitions are liable to be
dismissed.
10. The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly dismissed. No
costs. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
…………………………….. J.
(V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN)
………………………….. J.
(PANKAJ MITHAL)
New Delhi;
April 11, 2023