Permission For Political Rallies Cannot Be Refused Citing Hindrance To Traffic: Madras HC

In a very significant development, we witnessed that while ruling on a very significant legal point pertaining to the granting of permission for political rallies, the Madras High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Rajasekaran vs Assistant Election Officer in W.P(MD)No.8967 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.8152 and 8153 of 2024 that was pronounced as recently as on 07.04.2024 has minced just no words to unequivocally hold that mere hindrance to traffic and free movement of people by itself cannot be a ground to reject permission for political rallies. We thus see that the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court allowed the BJP President Mr JP Nadda’s rally in Tiruchirapalli in Tamil Nadu. We need to note that the petitioner Mr Rajasekaran who is District Secretary of BJP had applied for rally permission with the Assistant Election Officer for their party’s campaign with National President of BJP – Shri Jagat Prakash Nadda to rally from Gandhi Market Arch to Malaikottai of Tiruchirappalli Constituency in Tamil Nadu.

It ought to be noted that the permission for rally was rejected citing heavy traffic due to nearby businesses and lack of permanent registration for the rally vehicle despite a temporary registration copy provided by the petitioner. Interestingly enough, the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice K Murali Shankar minced just no words to observe unequivocally that, “Just because there would be some hindrance for the traffic and free movement of the people, that by itself is not a ground to reject the permission.” We thus see that the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court finally allowed the petition. Very rightly so!

Before stating anything else, it is pointed out quite distinctly pertaining to prayer in this notable judgment that, “This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records in connection with the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent vide his proceedings Ref.No.Na.Ka.No.C3/2035/2024 (Va.Ku.A.2), dated 05.04.2024 signed on 06.4.2024, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to grant permission with adequate police protection for rally, scheduled on 07.04.2024 at about 4.30 p.m. to 07.00 p.m., commencing at Gandhi Market Arch and finishing at Malaikottai of Tiruchirapalli Constituency.”

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice K Murali Shankar sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The Writ Petition is directed against the order of rejection dated 05.04.2024 (signed on 06.04.2024) by the first respondent and for a consequential direction to the respondents to grant permission for rally on 07.04.2024 commencing at about 04.30 P.M. to 07.00 P.M at Gandhi Market Arch and finishing at Malaikottai of Tiruchirapalli Constituency to be attended by the National President of Bharatiya Janata Party.”

To put things in perspective, the Bench then envisages in para 3 while laying bare the petitioner’s case most succinctly that, “It is the case of the petitioner that he, being the District Secretary, applied for permission through online on 04.04.2024 with the first respondent to permit their party to conduct a rally scheduled on 07.04.2024 at about 04.30.p.m to 07.00 p.m commencing at Gandhi Market Arch and finishing at Malaikottai of Tiruchirapalli Constituency, in which their party National President Shri Jagat Prakash Nadda was to participate, in order to campaign for the Lok Sabha Election for the year 2024. The first respondent has passed the impugned order, rejecting the permission sought for. The main reason assigned for rejection is that there are more number of business shops and commercial establishments in the area, for which, the permission is sought for and lot of people used to visit those places, and that there is general prohibition for allowing four wheelers from 06.00 a. m to 10.00 p.m every day in those places. Considering the heavy traffic and the movement of a lot of people, according to the first respondent, the permission sought for cannot be granted. Next reason assigned is that the vehicle which is going to be used for rally ie., ISUZU Goods Carrier bearing temporary Registration No.T0324-GJ-58530 is not having permanent Registration and that Road Tax has not been paid and that therefore, the said vehicle cannot be allowed to ply in the roads. The petitioner has produced the copy of temporary Certificate of Registration for the said vehicle and wherein, it is evident that the temporary registration is shown to be valid from 18.03.2024 to 17.09.2024.”

To be sure, the Bench discloses in para 4 that, “The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the same vehicle was used by other National Leaders of their party when they were campaigning in Tamil Nadu and there was no objection on that occasions.”

Frankly speaking, the Bench fairly concedes in para 5 of this elegant judgment that, “The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the first respondent and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 would fairly concede that the said vehicle is having temporary registration for a period till September 2024. Considering the above, the said reason cannot be sustained.”

Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 6 of this reasonable judgment that, “Turning to the first reason, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the first respondent and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 would submit that Samayapuram Mariamman Temple festival is now going on and the respondents 2 and 3 have also granted permission for 52 vehicles for Poochooridhal Vizha and the said vehicle have to move only on the said route. They would also submit that since it is the month of Ramzan, more people used to assemble in the said area for attending prayer. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 would submit that if the permission is sought for, in any other alternative route, they are ready to say no objection to grant permission and suggested two other routes.”

Quite significantly and in the fitness of things, the Bench points out in para 7 of this commendable judgment that, “The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the National President has been accorded with Z category security, cover of CRPF and it will take time for the security people to visit alternative route and for making arrangements. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, would submit that they are ready to change the route and to commence from Kannappa Hotel and finish at ESI Hospital covering a distance of 1.5 kilo meters and that the authorities including the respondents may be directed to give police protection and also to offer all necessary help. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents 2 and 3 would submit that they are ready to provide police protection.”

Most significantly, the Bench mandates in para 8 of this robust judgment what constitutes the cornerstone also enunciating that, “Just because there would be some hindrance for the traffic and free movement of the people, that by itself is not a ground to reject the permission. The other objections now canvassed by the respondents, does not find place in the impugned order, as per their own version, which was passed on 06.04.2024, i.e., yesterday.”

Most forthrightly and as a corollary, the Bench then propounds in para 9 of this noteworthy judgment that, “In view of the above discussions, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the second respondent, dated 05.04.2024 and the same is hereby set aside. The first respondent is hereby directed to grant permission for the rally in the alternative route, as agreed by both parties, i.e., the rally is to begin from Kannappa Hotel and to finish at E.S.I. Hospital between 5.30 P.M and 08.00 P.M, today and the respondents 2 and 3 are directed to give necessary police protection by imposing necessary conditions. The respondents 2 and 3 are directed to include a condition that no flex board will be allowed to be erected by the organizers during the event. The petitioner is directed to comply with the conditions imposed by the respondents and all the parties are directed to ensure that the rally takes place peacefully without giving rise to any law and order problem.”

Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 10 of this cogent judgment that, “With the above said directions, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.”

In a nutshell, we thus see that it is quite discernibly clear that the Single Judge Bench of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice K Murali Shankar has minced just no words to unequivocally hold that the permission for political rallies cannot be rejected merely because there would be some hindrance for traffic and the free movement of people would be affected. There can be no gainsaying that India is a living and lively democratic country and holding political rallies is the cornerstone of democracy which cannot be allowed to be withheld at the drop of a hat! Of course, it is thus quite ostensible that this is what the Court has upheld in this pragmatic, pertinent and progressive judgment! No denying it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,

s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi,

A 82, Defence Enclave,

Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,

Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.