Delhi High Court: Petitioner approached this Court praying for an appropriate writ/order/direction to quash a communication issued by Respondent 2, Deputy Commissioner of Police (‘DCP’), Central District, revoking No Objection Certificate (‘NOC’) granted to petitioner for holding an event on 29-10-2023. Petitioner also prayed for quashing of a communication issued by Respondent 3, cancelling the booking of the Ramlila Ground, Delhi, which had been booked by petitioner for holding the said event on 29-10-2023.
Subramonium Prasad, J.*, opined that though the event had been styled for the purpose of educating people of their constitutional rights but the tenor of posters which had been produced indicated that the event in question could have communal over-tones which could result in increasing communal tensions in the Old Delhi area, which was a “sensitive” area as people of different religions live there and communal violence in the area was not unknown. The Court thus, held that the letter dated 16-10-2023, withdrawing the NOC granted to petitioner for conducting an event on the ground that it could create a law-and-order situation and it should not be permitted at this time did not require any interference from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Background
Petitioner approached Respondent 3 with a request to book the Ramlila Ground for 29-10-2023 to organize an event to educate people about their constitutional rights. It was stated that in order to organize the said event, petitioner was required to obtain a NOC from the Police Authorities before permission could be granted to hold the said event. Accordingly, petitioner sent a letter to Respondent 2 seeking an NOC to organize the event. Thereafter, petitioner received a Communication from Respondent 2 permitting to organize an event at the Ramlila Ground, subject to petitioner adhering to the terms and conditions and obtaining a prior permission from the land-owning agency.
On receiving an NOC from the Police, petitioner deposited Rs. 50,000 towards holding the said event. Later, petitioner received a letter from Respondent 2 stating that some representations had been received from public objecting to the conduct of the event in question and the matter had been re-assessed wherein it had surfaced that the theme of the event was 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 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 was a strong apprehension that holding such even during festive season and at such a sensitive place might spread communal hatred and dent the peace and tranquility of the area. The letter also stated that amidst the tension in the Arab countries due to ongoing war between Israel and HAMAS, the authorities apprehend that such kind of events might 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 petitioner vide letter dated 06-10-2023 stands revoked.
Consequently, a communication dated 17-10-2023 was issued by Respondent 3 cancelling the booking of petitioner for the event to be held on 29-10-2023. Therefore, petitioner had approached this Court challenging the letter dated 16-10-2023 revoking the permission and the communication dated 17-10-2023 cancelling the booking of Ramlila Ground.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that “holding public events to ventilate grievances and to ensure that the grievances are heard is a fundamental right which is enshrined in Articles 19(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution. 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 Court relied on Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra, 1961 SCC OnLine SC 48, wherein the Supreme Court 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 Court opined that “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”.
The Court further relied on Ramlila Maidan Incident, In re, (2012) 5 SCC 1 and Anita Thakur v. State of J&K, (2016) 15 SCC 525 and opined that “the right to protest could not be said to be untrammeled. Article 19(2) of the Constitution permits the State to impose such reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred under Article 19(1) of the Constitution in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, etc. Article 19(3) of the Constitution gives right to the State to impose certain restrictions on the exercise of Article 19(1) of the Constitution in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order”.
The Court observed that the entire country was celebrating Navratri from 15-10-2023 to 24-10-2023 and Diwali, which would be celebrated on 12-11-2023. Between Navratri and Diwali, there were several festivals like Karvachauth, Dhanteras, etc and this period was extremely auspicious for Hindu Community. The Court opined that though the event had been styled for the purpose of educating people of their constitutional rights but the tenor of posters which had been produced indicated that the event in question could have communal over-tones which could result in increasing communal tensions in the Old Delhi area, which was a “sensitive” area as people of different religions live there and communal violence in the area was not unknown.
The Court further opined that the apprehension raised by the SHO of that area, who was aware of the ground reality, could not be ignored and though Articles 19(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution gave freedom to raise one’s voice but at the same time, the possibility of the event creating a law and order situation which could result in loss of lives, property, etc was 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 could not be said to be arbitrary.
Thus, the Court held that the letter dated 16-10-2023, withdrawing the NOC granted to petitioner for conducting an event on the ground that it could create a law-and-order situation and it should not be permitted at this time did not require any interference from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Court further stated that after the festive season was over, it was always open for 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 would not raise communal tension in the area.
[Mission Save Constitution v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6892, decided on 25-10-2023]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Subramonium Prasad
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: R.H.A. Sikander, Daya Ram Badalia, Sanawar Choudhary, Jatin Bhatt, Harshit S. Gahlot, Advocates
For the Respondents: Apoorv Kurup, CGSC; Satyakam, Khushboo Nahar, ASC; Akhil Hasija, Ganesh Kumar Bhatt, Kunal Israney, Advocates
Buy Constitution of India HERE
