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

Date of the Judgment: 11 April 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 359

Judges: V. Ramasubramanian, J., Pankaj Mithal, J.

Can a court modify its own order in a contempt proceeding? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question while examining a case related to a procession request by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). The Court also considered whether the State could deny permission for the procession based on law and order concerns. This case highlights the importance of judicial procedure and the balance between public order and the right to assembly. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice Pankaj Mithal, with Justice V. Ramasubramanian authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case originated from a series of writ petitions filed by the office bearers of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The petitioners sought permission to conduct a procession (Route March) on 02.10.2022. However, their applications were not considered by the authorities.

The Madras High Court initially directed the authorities to grant permission for the procession on 02.10.2022, subject to certain conditions. The State filed review applications and one of the representations seeking permission to hold the march in Chennai was rejected by the local Inspector of Police on 27.09.2022. This rejection led to a contempt petition against several state officials.

On 30.09.2022, the High Court suggested alternative dates for the procession, and fixed 06.11.2022 as the date. The Director General of Police issued a memorandum on 29.10.2022, instructing officials to pass orders on the organizers’ representations. However, on 02.11.2022, the State submitted a status report citing security concerns due to a recent cylinder blast in Coimbatore, leading to restrictions on the procession in many locations. The High Court then modified its original order on 04.11.2022, imposing further conditions on the procession.

Aggrieved by the modified order, the organizers filed intra-court appeals, which were allowed by a Division Bench of the High Court on 10.02.2023, restoring the original order of 22.09.2022 and directing the State to permit the procession on one of three dates chosen by the organizers. The State then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The initial writ petitions were filed by the RSS seeking permission for a procession on 02.10.2022. A single judge of the Madras High Court initially allowed the writ petitions, directing the authorities to grant permission for the procession, subject to certain conditions. The State filed review applications against this order. Subsequently, a contempt petition was filed when the police rejected the application for permission to conduct the procession in Chennai. The single judge modified the original order in the contempt petition, imposing further conditions. This order was challenged in intra-court appeals, which were allowed by a Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench restored the original order and directed the State to permit the procession on one of the three dates chosen by the organizers. The State then approached the Supreme Court challenging the order of the Division Bench, as well as the original order in the writ petition and the order in the review applications.

Legal Framework

The Madras High Court considered the scope of Sections 41 and 41A of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888 and Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861. These provisions relate to the regulation of public assemblies and processions by the police. Specifically:

• Section 41 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888 deals with the power of the Commissioner of Police to regulate assemblies and processions in public places.
• Section 41A of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888 provides for the power of the Commissioner of Police to give directions to regulate traffic and public order.
• Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861 deals with the regulation of public assemblies and processions and the licensing of the same.

The High Court interpreted these provisions to mean that while the police have the power to regulate processions, they cannot arbitrarily deny permission for them. The court held that the State must balance the right to assembly with the need to maintain public order.

Arguments

The petitioners (State of Tamil Nadu) argued that:

• The High Court’s initial order was passed without considering the prevailing law and order situation.
• The State had intelligence reports indicating potential law and order problems if the procession was allowed.
• The High Court modified its original order in a contempt petition, which was beyond the scope of such proceedings.
• The State has the power to regulate processions to maintain public order under Section 41 and 41A of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888 and Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861.

The respondent (RSS organizers) argued that:

• The High Court’s initial order was correct and followed previous orders of the same court.
• The State’s concerns about law and order were not substantiated by evidence, as the members of the respondent organization were victims in many of the cases cited by the State.
• The High Court was justified in restoring its original order, as the modification in the contempt petition was beyond the scope of contempt proceedings.
• The right to assembly is a fundamental right, and the State cannot arbitrarily deny permission for processions.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issues addressed by the court were:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in modifying its original order in a contempt petition.
2. Whether the State could deny permission for the procession based on law and order concerns.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Sections 41 and 41A of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888: These sections empower the Commissioner of Police to regulate assemblies and processions in public places. The Court noted that these provisions allow for regulation but not arbitrary denial of permission.
• Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861: This section deals with the regulation of public assemblies and processions and the licensing of the same. The Court considered this to understand the power of the State to regulate public assemblies.

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition arising out of the order of the Division Bench of the High Court, which had restored the original order of the single judge. The Court held that the single judge had traveled beyond the scope of a contempt petition by modifying the original order. The Court also found that the State’s concerns about law and order were not substantiated by evidence, and the members of the respondent organization were victims in many of the cases cited by the State. The Court upheld the Division Bench’s decision to restore the original order of the single judge.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Sections 41 and 41A of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888 and Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861: The Court acknowledged the power to regulate but emphasized that it does not allow for arbitrary denial of permission. The Court held that these provisions allow for regulation but not arbitrary denial of permission.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Procedural Propriety: The Court emphasized that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by modifying its original order in a contempt petition. This indicated that the Court prioritized adherence to established legal procedures.
• Lack of Substantiated Evidence: The Court noted that the State’s claims regarding law and order issues were not supported by concrete evidence. The Court observed that the members of the respondent organization were victims in many of the cases cited by the State.
• Right to Assembly: The Court implicitly recognized the importance of the right to assembly and the need to balance it with the State’s responsibility to maintain public order.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a combination of procedural law and factual analysis. The Court prioritized the adherence to established legal procedures, while also considering the factual aspects of the case. The Court emphasized the importance of the right to assembly and the need to balance it with the State’s responsibility to maintain public order.

The Court’s decision was based on the principle that a court cannot modify its original order in a contempt petition and that the State cannot arbitrarily deny permission for processions without substantiated evidence.

The Supreme Court stated, “the learned Judge travelled beyond the scope of a contempt petition and this is why the said order warranted interference by the Division Bench.”

The Court also noted, “the Chart provided by the State Government shows that the members of the respondent organization were the victims in many of those cases and that they were not the perpetrators.”

The Court further observed, “it is not possible for us to find fault with the order passed by the learned Judge either in the main writ petitions or in the review applications.”

Key Takeaways

• A court cannot modify its original order in a contempt petition.
• The State cannot arbitrarily deny permission for processions based on unsubstantiated law and order concerns.
• The right to assembly is a fundamental right that needs to be balanced with the State’s responsibility to maintain public order.
• The State must provide concrete evidence to support its claims regarding law and order issues.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions, other than dismissing the special leave petitions.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that a High Court cannot modify its original order in a contempt petition and that the State cannot arbitrarily deny permission for processions based on unsubstantiated law and order concerns. This judgment reinforces the principle that the right to assembly is a fundamental right that needs to be balanced with the State’s responsibility to maintain public order. There is no change in the previous position of law, but rather a reinforcement of the same.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the State’s appeals, upholding the Division Bench’s decision to restore the original order of the Madras High Court. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to legal procedures and the need for the State to provide concrete evidence when restricting fundamental rights. The judgment reinforces the principle that the right to assembly is a fundamental right that needs to be balanced with the State’s responsibility to maintain public order.