Case Title: Magesh Karthikeyan v The Commissioner of Police
Case No: W.P.No.30692 of 2023
Dated: 31.10.2023
Coram: THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Introduction
At the run of dismissing approval to conduct a meeting to eliminate “Dravidian Ideology” the Madras High Court recently pointed out that not anybody had a right to disseminate divise ideas and conduct meetings to exterminate or eliminate any ideology. The court added that the co-existence of multiple ideologies was the identity of the country.
Rattling about the recent meetings held on eliminating sanatana dharma added that the failure of police to take any action against Ministers and members of the ruling party who had made inflammatory speeches was a dereliction of duty.
Facts of the Case
petitioner herein claims that it is the fundamental right to conduct such a meeting. This Court cannot subscribe to this view. No person in this Country can have a right to propagate divisive ideas and conduct meetings to abolish or eradicate any Ideology. The co-existence of multiple and different ideologies is the identity of this Country.
This Court is of the view that people in power should realize the danger of speech unflaring fissiparous tendency and behave responsibly and restrain themselves from propagating views which will divide people in the name of Ideology, Caste, and Religion. Instead, they may concentrate on eradicating intoxicating drinks and drugs which are injuries to health, corruption untouchability, and other social evil.
The court was hearing a plea by a man seeking permission to conduct an indoor meeting for eradicating “Dravidian” and coordinating “Tamizhan”. The petitioner had relied upon an earlier order of the court allowing a man to conduct a meeting addressing views about Dravidian ideology and sought for similar permission to conduct the meeting.
Court Analysis
The court however observed that while the earlier order was for conducting a meeting about Dravidian ideology, the present meeting was an attempt to counter the recently held Sanatana Eradication conclave. Though the man claimed that he had a fundamental right to conduct such a meeting, the court took a different view. The court remarked that no one could expect the courts to aid them in propagating ideas to create ill-will among people.
The court also observed that since the police had failed to take action against the earlier meeting to eradicate Sanatana Dharma, permissions were being sought to counter that by conducting meetings to eradicate Dravidian ideologies. The court added that if such permissions were granted, it would further disturb the peace and tranquillity of the public who were already fed up with office bearers acting in breach of their oath.
the court was not in favor of granting permission for the meeting and dismissed the petition.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written By
Kaulav Roychowdhury
Click here to read the Judgement
