Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 25th OCTOBER, 2023 IN THE MATTER OF:
MISSION SAVE CONSTITUTION ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.H.A. Sikander, Mr. Daya Ram Badalia, Mr. Sanawar Choudhary, Mr. Jatin Bhatt and Mr. Harshit S.
Gahlot, Advocates.
Through: Mr. Apoorv Kurup, CGSC with Mr. Akhil Hasija, Advocate for R-1.
Mr. Satyakam, ASC with Mr. Ganesh Kumar Bhatt, Advocate for R-2.
Ms. Khushboo Nahar, ASC for MCD with Mr. Kunal Israney, Advocate for
R-3.
ACP Sunil Srivastava, Insp. S.S.
Dalal and S.I. Giriraj, PS Kamla Market.
JUDGMENT
1. Petitioner has approached this Court praying for an appropriate writ/order/direction to quash a communication bearing No. 37469/Arrgt./C, Delhi, dated 16.10.2023, issued by Respondent No.2 herein, i.e. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central District, revoking the No Objection Certificate granted to the Petitioner herein for holding an event on 18:30 29.10.2023. The Petitioner also prays for quashing of a communication dated 17.10.2023, issued by Respondent No.3 herein, cancelling the booking of the Ramlila Ground, Delhi, which had been booked by the Petitioner for holding the said event on 29.10.2023.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts, leading to the present Writ Petition, are as under: a) Petitioner had approached Respondent No.3 with a request to book the Ramlila Ground for 29.10.2023 for the purpose of organizing an event purportedly to educate people about their constitutional rights. It is stated that in order to organize the said event, the Petitioner was required to obtain a No Objection Certificate (hereinafter called as “the NOC”) from the Police Authorities before permission could be granted to hold the said event. b) Accordingly, the Petitioner sent a letter to the DCP, Central Delhi, seeking an NOC to organize the event, which, according to the Petitioner, was being held to educate the people about their constitutional rights. The letter indicates that the Petitioner was expecting a gathering of around 10,000 people in the said event. c) It is pertinent to mention at this juncture that the State has issued a list of Terms and Conditions for holding public events in Delhi and has prescribed Dos and Donts for organizing such events. The conditions include that no participant shall make provocative speeches or use language calculated or likely to inflame passions of the crowd or incite them or promote enmity 18:30 between different groups or ground of religion, race, place or birth, residence language etc. or act in any manner which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between such groups or disturb public tranquility. The terms and conditions also specify that no participant shall destroy, damage or defile, deface any place of worship or any object held sacred by any class of persons with the intention of insulting any religion or any class of persons or causing enmity between different sections of people/disturbing communal harmony. d) It is stated that the Petitioner received a Communication from Respondent No.2 herein on 06.10.203, permitting the Petitioner to organize an event at the Ramlila Ground which was to educate people about their constitutional rights subject to the Petitioner adhering to the terms and conditions and obtaining a prior permission from the land owning agency. e) It is stated that on receiving an NOC from the Police the Petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards holding the said event. f) Material on record discloses that on 16.10.2023, Petitioner received a letter from Respondent No.2 stating that some representations have been received from public objecting to the conduct of the event in question and the matter has been reassessed through ACP/SHO Kamla Market wherein it has surfaced that the theme of the event is different than what was projected by the organizers while seeking permission. The letter further states that in the re-assessment it has been disclosed that 18:30 the language written on the posters available on social media regarding the event shows that the agenda of the event appears to be communal and there is a strong apprehension that holding such even during festive season and at such a sensitive place may spread communal hatred and dent the peace and tranquility of the area. The letter also states that amidst the tension in the Arab countries due to ongoing war between Israel and HAMAS, the authorities apprehend that such kind of events may lead to a law and order situation and spoil the atmosphere of Old Delhi where people belonging to all religions live and, therefore, the NOC granted to the Petitioner vide letter dated 06.10.2023 stands revoked. g) Consequently, a communication dated 17.10.2023 was issued by the Respondent No.3 cancelling the booking of the Petitioner herein for the event in question which was to be held on 29.10.2023. h) The Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition challenging the letter dated 16.10.2023 revoking the permission and the communication dated 17.10.2023 cancelling the booking of Ramlila Ground.
3. The Writ Petition came up for hearing on 19.10.2023. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 was asked to obtain instructions and the matter was fixed for hearing on 20.10.2023.
4. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 stated that when Delhi Police came across the posters which carried the agenda of the event which is to be organized by the Petitioner on 29.10.2023, the organizers were requested to 18:30 attend a meeting on 15.10.2023 along with a copy of the poster which the Police came across in the media.
5. He states that the Petitioner was also asked to bring a list of VIPs and Speakers who were likely to attend the said event. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 has also taken this Court through a complaint received on 16.10.2023 from a resident wherein it is stated that in a video message, which is made viral, a Maulana, namely, Toqeer Raza from Bareilly is seen announcing a panchayat to be held on 29.10.2023 at Ram Lila Ground using abusive language against the Prime Minister. A concern has been raised in the said complaint that this meeting can result in communal tensions in Old Delhi. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 has also taken this Court through another complaint which states that the event in question can have the effect of creating communal tension in the Old Delhi area where people of different communities/religions are living peacefully. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 has also taken this Court through a recommendation of SHO Kamla Market wherein he has stated that there is an apprehension of communal peace being disturbed due to the proposed event in question and more particularly, because of the tension in Arab countries. He has also taken this Court through a poster which has the effect of inciting communcal tension. The said poster is reproduced below: 18:30
6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the proposed meeting is only to educate people about their constitutional rights. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to various judgments of Apex Court to contend that the right to protest is an integral part of democracy and is enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. He places reliance on the following judgments: 18:30 Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police, (2020) 12 S.C.R. 151; Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra, (1961) 3 S.C.R. 423; Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, (1966) 1 S.C.R. 709; Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, (1973) 2 S.C.R. 266; In Re. Destruction of Public & Private Properties, (2009) 6 S.C.R. 439; In Re. Ramlila Maidan Incident Dt.4/5.06.2011 v. Home Secretary, Union of India & Ors., (2012) 4 S.C.R. 971; K. Philipraja v. Superintendent of Police, Erode District, W.P. 33335/2013; Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India & Anr., (2018) 11 S.C.R. 586; He states that the Petitioner is amenable to changing the dates and also for changing the contents of the poster and other literature but without giving an opportunity to the Petitioner, the NOC granted by Respondent No.2 has been withdrawn. He states that the reasons given in the letter dated 16.10.2023 withdrawing the NOC are arbitrary and the same cannot be accepted. He states that some complaints received from a few people cannot be a basis for revoking the permission.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 contends that the apprehension raised by the Police is not fanciful and is based on the material which could not have been discarded by the Police.
8. Heard the Counsels for the Parties and perused the material on record.
9. It is well settled that holding public events to ventilate grievances and 18:30 to ensure that the grievances are heard is a fundamental right which is enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution of India. The views expressed by the aggrieving party may or may not be accepted and it is the duty of the Courts to protect the rights of the people which are guaranteed in the Constitution of India. The Apex Court in Babulal Parate (supra) has held that the right of citizens to take out processions or to hold public meetings flows from the right in Article 19(1)(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms and the right to move anywhere in the territory of India. The right to make a demonstration can take the form of an assembly with the intention to convey the feelings of the persons who are a part of the demonstration to the authority and such right to demonstrate falls within the freedom granted under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India. In Ramlila Maidan Incident, In re, (2012) 5 SCC 1, the Apex Court has observed as under:
10. Similarly, in Anita Thakur v. State of J&K, (2016) 15 SCC 525, the Apex Court recognized the right to peaceful protest and has held as under:
11. It has also been constantly held that the right to protest cannot be said to be untrammeled. Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India permits the State to impose such reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, etc. Article 19(3) of the Constitution of India gives right to the State to impose certain restrictions on the exercise of Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order. Article 19 (1), 19(2) & 19(3) of the Constitution of India reads as under:
12. The Apex Court in Ramlila Maidan Incident (supra) while dealing with this question has held as under:
250. There cannot be any dispute that the executive authorities have to be given some leverage while taking such decisions and the scope of judicial review of such orders is very limited. These propositions of law are to be understood and applied with reference to the facts of a given case. It is not necessary for me to reiterate those facts. Suffice it to note that the action of the police was arbitrary. The seven-Judge Bench of this Court in Madhu Limaye [(1970) 3 SCC 746: AIR 1971 SC 2486] reiterated with approval the law enunciated in Babulal Parate [AIR 1961 SC 884: (1961) 2 Cri LJ 16: (1961) 3 SCR 423] and further held that: (Madhu Limaye case [(1970) 3 SCC 746: AIR 1971 SC 2486], SCC p. 757, para 24)
The fundamental emphasis is on prevention of situation which would lead to disturbance of public tranquillity, however, action proposed to be taken should be one which itself is not likely to generate public disorder and disturb public tranquillity. It should be preventive and not provocative. The police action in the present case led to a terror in the minds of members of the assembly and finally the untoward incident.” 18:30
13. Similarly, in Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (supra), the Apex Court, while dealing with the restrictions imposed by the State under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C prohibiting holding of meeting etc. in areas such as Parliament House, North and South Blocks and other Central Government offices, etc., has observed as under:
67. The tenor or these orders and the specific language used therein bring about the following two features: (a) there should not be “unrestricted” holding of public meetings, processions, etc.; and (b) as a corollary, the order mentions that such public meetings, processions, demonstrations, etc. would not be allowed “without written permission”.
68. The reading of these orders, thus, would indicate that there is no absolute prohibition from holding public meetings, processions, demonstrations, etc. Such activities are to be restricted in larger public interest and, therefore, before any group of persons or person wants to carry out any such processions and dharnas, it has to take prior written permission. This clearly implies that whenever such a request is made, the authority is to examine the same and take a decision as to whether it should allow the proposed demonstration, public meeting, etc. or not, keeping in view its likely effect, namely, whether it would cause any obstruction to traffic or danger to human safety or disturbance to public tranquillity, etc. If requests made are considered and then allowed or rejected keeping in view the aforesaid considerations, there cannot be any quarrel as to the validity of such an order made under Section 144 CrPC. That is, however, not the ground reality.” 18:30
14. The entire country is celebrating Navratri from 15.10.2023 to 24.10.2023 and Diwali, which will be celebrated on 12.11.2023. Between Navratri and Diwali, there are several festivals like Karvachauth, Dhanteras, etc. This period is extremely auspicious for Hindu Community. Though the event has been styled for the purpose of educating people of their constitutional rights but the tenor of posters which have been produced by the learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 indicates that the event in question can have communal over-tones which can result in increasing communal tensions in the Old Delhi area, which is a “sensitive” area as people of different religions live here and communal violence in the area is not unknown. The apprehension raised by the SHO of that area, who is aware of the ground reality, cannot be ignored. Though Article 19(1) (a) & (b) of the Constitution of India gives freedom to raise one’s voice but at the same time, the possibility of the event creating a law and order situation which can result in loss of lives, property, etc is an important factor which has to be taken into account by the law enforcement agencies and, therefore, the reason given in the letter dated 16.10.2023 cannot be said to be arbitrary.
15. It is well settled that the Executive Authorities have to be given some leverage while taking these decisions and the scope of judicial review is limited [Refer: Babulal Parate (supra)].
16. In view of the above, the letter dated 16.10.2023, withdrawing the NOC granted to the Petitioner herein for conducting an event on the ground that it can create a law and order situation in the area in the present circumstances and it should not be permitted at this time does not require any interference from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 18:30
17. However, as suggested by the learned Counsel for the Respondents, that after the festive season is over it is always open for the Petitioner to approach the authorities for a fresh permission by giving the list of speakers and giving proper assurance to the authorities that the event will not raise communal tension in the area. On receipt of such application from the Petitioner in future, Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the application on its own merits.
18. With these observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed along with the pending applications, if any.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J OCTOBER 25, 2023 18:30