Supreme Court Upholds Right to Procession, Dismisses State’s Appeal: K. Phanindra Reddy vs. G. Subramanian (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: April 11, 2023
The Supreme Court of India addressed the question of whether a High Court can modify its original order in a contempt petition after disposing of the main writ petition and review applications. This case arose from a series of orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras regarding a request by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to conduct a procession. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the State’s appeals, upholding the right to conduct a procession under certain conditions. The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justices V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal. Justice V. Ramasubramanian authored the opinion.

Case Background

The case began when the office bearers of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) filed 49 writ petitions in the High Court of Judicature at Madras, seeking permission to conduct a procession (Route March) on October 2, 2022. The petitioners contended that their applications for permission were not considered by the authorities.

On September 22, 2022, a learned Judge of the Madras High Court disposed of the writ petitions with certain directions. Subsequently, the State filed review applications. Meanwhile, one of the applications seeking permission to hold the march in Chennai was rejected by the local Inspector of Police on September 27, 2022.

This rejection led to a legal notice on September 28, 2022, followed by a contempt petition against the Secretary to Government, Home Department, the Director General of Police, the Superintendent of Police, and the Inspector of Police.

On September 30, 2022, the learned Judge, before whom the contempt petition came up, suggested alternative dates for the procession, other than October 2, 2022. The court fixed November 6, 2022, for the procession and directed the State to maintain law and order.

Following this, the Director General of Police issued a memorandum on October 29, 2022, instructing Commissioners/Superintendents of Police to pass necessary orders on the organizers’ representations. On October 31, 2022, the High Court noted that the applications were under consideration.

On November 2, 2022, the Staff Officer in the Office of the Director General of Police filed a status report, stating that a fresh assessment was needed due to a cylinder blast in Coimbatore on October 23, 2022. The report suggested that processions/public meetings should not be permitted in 24 locations, could be permitted in enclosed premises in 23 locations, and could be permitted in three locations.

On the same day, November 2, 2022, the learned Judge passed two independent orders—one in the contempt petitions and another in the review applications. The review applications were closed, and the contempt petitions were adjourned to November 4, 2022, for passing orders after perusing the Intelligence Report.

On November 4, 2022, the learned Judge passed final orders in the contempt petitions, modifying the original order of September 22, 2022, and imposing conditions for conducting the procession on November 6, 2022.

Aggrieved by the order of November 4, 2022, the organizers filed intra-court appeals, which were allowed by a Division Bench of the High Court on February 10, 2023. The Division Bench set aside the order of November 4, 2022, restored the order of September 22, 2022, and directed the organizers to approach the State with three different dates for the procession, with the State to grant permission on one of those dates.

The State then filed special leave petitions challenging the Division Bench’s order, as well as the earlier orders of the learned Single Judge.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The initial writ petitions were filed by the RSS seeking permission to conduct a procession. The learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras allowed the writ petitions with certain conditions on September 22, 2022. The State filed review applications against this order, which were later dismissed on November 2, 2022.

A contempt petition was filed after the police rejected permission for the procession in Chennai. The learned Single Judge, in the contempt proceedings, modified the original order of September 22, 2022, on November 4, 2022, imposing new conditions for the procession.

The organizers then filed intra-court appeals against the order passed in the contempt petition. The Division Bench of the High Court allowed these appeals on February 10, 2023, setting aside the modified order and restoring the original order of September 22, 2022.

The State challenged the Division Bench’s order, as well as the original order and the order dismissing the review petitions, by filing special leave petitions in the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The High Court considered the scope of Section 41 and Section 41A of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888, and Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861.

Section 41 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888, deals with the regulation of public assemblies and processions, stating:
“The Commissioner of Police may, from time to time, make rules for the conduct of and may regulate the extent to which processions may be carried in the streets and public places, and may prescribe the routes by which, and the times at which, such processions may pass.”

Section 41A of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888, empowers the Commissioner of Police to give directions to secure public order.

Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861, pertains to the regulation of public assemblies and processions, stating:
“The District Superintendent or Assistant District Superintendent of Police may, as occasion requires, direct the conduct of all assemblies and processions on the public roads, or in the public streets or thoroughfares, and prescribe the routes by which, and the times at which, such processions may pass.”

The High Court interpreted these provisions to grant permission for the procession, subject to certain conditions. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining public order while upholding the right to conduct processions.

Arguments

Petitioners’ Arguments:

• The petitioners, the office bearers of the RSS, argued that they had a right to conduct a peaceful procession (Route March) on October 2, 2022.
• They contended that their applications for permission were not duly considered by the authorities.
• They submitted that the High Court should direct the State authorities to grant permission for the procession.
• They suggested alternative dates for the procession when the court suggested not to conduct the procession on 02.10.2022.

State’s Arguments:

• The State argued that after the imposition of a ban order on another organization, law and order problems had arisen in certain places.
• The State contended that these law and order issues led to several cases being registered.
• The State submitted that the local situation required a fresh assessment, especially after the cylinder blast in Coimbatore on October 23, 2022.
• The State argued that it was not advisable to permit any processions/public meetings in 24 locations due to security concerns.

The State presented a chart detailing the cases registered, claiming that these cases justified their concerns about law and order. However, the Supreme Court noted that the chart indicated that members of the respondent organization were often the victims, not the perpetrators, in these cases.

Innovation of Arguments:

The State’s argument that a ban on another organization had led to law and order issues, thereby justifying the denial of permission to the RSS, was a novel attempt to link unrelated events. However, the Supreme Court did not find this argument convincing, as the data presented by the State showed that the members of the RSS were mostly victims in the cases cited.

The petitioners’ argument was straightforward, emphasizing their right to conduct a peaceful procession and highlighting the lack of proper consideration of their applications.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the learned Single Judge of the High Court could have modified the original order dated September 22, 2022, in a batch of contempt petitions on November 4, 2022, after having disposed of the main writ petitions and review applications.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The High Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Sections 41 and 41A of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888: These sections deal with the regulation of public assemblies and processions and the power of the Commissioner of Police to give directions to secure public order.
• Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861: This section pertains to the regulation of public assemblies and processions by the District Superintendent or Assistant District Superintendent of Police.

The High Court also followed several similar orders passed by other judges of the same High Court, including one by Justice V. Ramasubramanian (as he then was at the Madras High Court).

Treatment of Authorities

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court’s interpretation and application of Sections 41 and 41A of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888, and Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861, in granting permission for the procession subject to conditions.
• The Supreme Court also noted that the High Court followed similar orders passed by other judges of the same High Court, which supported its decision.

The Supreme Court held that the learned Single Judge of the High Court had overstepped the scope of a contempt petition by modifying the original order. The Court noted that once the main writ petitions were disposed of and the review applications were dismissed, the High Court could not modify its original order in contempt proceedings.

The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition arising out of the order of the Division Bench of the High Court, which had correctly set aside the modified order passed in the contempt petition. The other special leave petitions, challenging the original order and the order dismissing the review applications, were also dismissed.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The High Court’s overreach in modifying the original order in a contempt petition after the main writ petitions and review applications were disposed of.
• The fact that the State’s concerns about law and order were not substantiated by the data provided, which showed that members of the respondent organization were often the victims in the cases cited.
• The importance of upholding the right to conduct peaceful processions, subject to reasonable conditions.

The Court emphasized that the High Court had correctly interpreted the relevant legal provisions and imposed necessary conditions in its original order.

The Court also noted that the High Court had followed previous orders passed by other judges of the same High Court, indicating a consistent approach to similar matters.

Fact:Law

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court emphasized that a High Court cannot modify its original order in a contempt petition after disposing of the main writ petition and review applications.
• The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to procedural norms and the limits of the court’s power in contempt proceedings.
• The Court upheld the right to conduct peaceful processions, subject to reasonable conditions, and rejected the State’s attempt to deny permission based on unsubstantiated law and order concerns.
• The State must provide concrete evidence to justify restrictions on the right to assembly and procession.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this case. The Court dismissed the special leave petitions, thereby upholding the Division Bench’s order that had restored the original order of the High Court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a High Court cannot modify its original order in a contempt petition after the main writ petition and review applications have been disposed of. This reaffirms the importance of procedural integrity and the limits of the court’s power in contempt proceedings. The judgment also reinforces the principle that the right to conduct peaceful processions should be upheld, subject to reasonable conditions, and that restrictions must be based on concrete evidence, not unsubstantiated concerns. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the State’s appeals, upholding the Division Bench’s decision to set aside the modified order passed in the contempt petition. The Court emphasized that the High Court had overstepped its bounds by modifying the original order in contempt proceedings after the main writ petitions and review applications were disposed of. The Supreme Court also reaffirmed the right to conduct peaceful processions, subject to reasonable conditions, and rejected the State’s attempt to deny permission based on unsubstantiated law and order concerns.