Madras High Court

Madras High Court: While deciding a case, wherein, a writ of Mandamus was filed to quash the order passed by respondent and consequently direct respondent to grant permission to hold public meeting to disseminate awareness regarding inter- caste marriages and honour killing, G. Chandrasekharan, J. said that it is a laudable object and we cannot prohibit or prevent public meeting to be organised by petitioner.

In the case at hand, the petitioner from backward community marries to the man belonging to the schedule caste. On commencement of inter – caste marriage her husband was assaulted with deadly weapon and allegedly killed on the instigation by her parents. Therefore, petitioner started a trust ‘Sankar Social Justice’ to create cognizance regarding inter-caste marriage and honour killing.

Petitioner submitted that on the second death anniversary of his deceased husband, she started this trust for creating recognition of inter-caste marriages and to achieve casteless society therefore, sought permission to conduct 7th memorial public meeting in honour of deceased husband to encourage and support the issue.

On the contrary the respondent submitted that, there is a ban against meeting and other assembly passed under Section of 30(2) of TN City Police Act, 1888. If the proposed meeting is permitted, there is a possibility to create destruction by the brother of the deceased and breach of peace by more than 550 villagers who are opposing this meeting.

The Court viewed that it is not the dispute were the petitioner is a victim to honour killing although her husband was murdered for the reason that he belongs to Scheduled Caste and petitioner belongs to most backward caste therefore, the scope of starting Sankar Social Justice Trust and fororganising present meeting isto disseminate information against honour killing, also to promote inter – caste marriages. It is a laudable object and cannot prevent or prohibit the meeting.

The Court further directed the respondent to give permission for conducting the meeting and imposing necessary and appropriate conditions, that are usually imposed.

[Kowsalya v State, 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 1677, order dated 10-03-2023]

Order by: Justice G. Chandrasekharan.

Advocates who appeared in this case :

For Petitioner: Mr. N.G.R.Prasad for Mr. R. Thirumoorthy;

For Respondent: Mr. S. Santhosh Government Advocate.

Must Watch

SCC Blog Guidelines

Justice BV Nagarathna

call recording evidence in court


Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.