Political meetings, rallies, or dharnas cannot be held on private land without the owner’s permission.

The writ petitioner had previously obtained an order dated 10 September 2026 permitting his political party to hold a meeting on 11 September 2026 at “Mahesh Jagannath Dev’s Snanpiri Maidan” and directing the police to provide assistance.

The Inspector-in-Charge, Serampore Police Station, and the Jagannath Jew Trustee Board sought review of that order. The Trustee Board contended that the Maidan was its privately owned property and that no permission had been granted for the proposed political meeting.

Although the writ petitioner relied on the venue’s prior use for political meetings, fairs and festivals, the Trustee Board stated that, by resolution dated 5 July 2026, it had decided not to permit political programmes at the venue.

The Division Bench, while hearing connected intra-court appeals, granted liberty to seek review on whether a political rally, meeting, agitation or dharna could be held on land belonging to the Trustee Board.

Whether a political meeting, rally, dharna or cultural programme could be held on “Mahesh Jagannath Dev’s Snanpiri Maidan”, being private land owned by the Jagannath Jew Trustee Board, without the Board’s permission?

Whether the writ petitioner’s political party could be permitted to hold its programme on an alternative public property, namely Serampore Court Ground, subject to reasonable restrictions concerning public order, security and traffic management?

The Court applied the principle in Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, (1973) 1 SCC 227, that Article 19(1)(b), read with Article 13 of the Constitution, protects citizens against State action but does not confer a right to assemble on private streets or private property without the consent of the owner or occupier.

Accordingly, political or public programmes cannot be conducted on privately owned land without the owner’s permission.

At the same time, the Court recognised the constitutional and democratic interest in permitting political parties to hold meetings on public land, subject to reasonable conditions safeguarding public order, security, traffic, sound limits and prevention of communal tension.

The Court found it undisputed that “Mahesh Jagannath Dev’s Snanpiri Maidan” belonged to the Trustee Board. The Board had not granted permission for the meeting and had expressly resolved not to permit political programmes at the venue.

The fact that the ground had allegedly been used for political meetings and other events in the past did not establish a continuing right to use the privately owned property without the owner’s consent. Applying Himat Lal K. Shah, the Court held that the earlier order permitting the meeting on the Maidan was legally unsustainable and allowed both review applications.

Since the earlier proposed rally on G.T. Road posed concerns arising from the presence of Walsh Hospital, educational institutions, a Fire Brigade establishment and the limited width of the road, the Court permitted a meeting—not a procession or road-blocking rally—at Serampore Court Ground.

The permission was conditioned by limits on time, attendance, sound, security arrangements and the conduct of the organisers.

Both review applications were therefore allowed, and the judgment dated 10 September 2026 was reviewed and modified.

The writ petitioner’s political party was permitted to hold a meeting at Serampore Court Ground on 26 September 2026 from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., subject to the following conditions: compliance with sound limits; no inflammatory or communally provocative statements; deployment of adequate police personnel; no procession on or obstruction of G.T. Road; submission of the names and mobile numbers of ten volunteers by 6:00 p.m. on 24 September 2026; limitation of attendance to 1,000 participants in view of the Z+ security requirement; erection and immediate dismantling of only one temporary stage; police protection for the meeting; assistance for electricians and decorators to remove their equipment; and necessary permission from the District Judge, Hooghly.