5 Nov 2023 8:05 AM GMT
While denying permission to conduct a meeting to eradicate “Dravidian Ideology”, the Madras High Court recently observed that no one had a right to propagate divise ideas and conduct meetings to abolish or eradicate any ideology. The court added that co-existence of multiple ideologies was the identity of the country.
Talking about the recent meetings held for eradicating “Sanatana Dharma”, Justice G Jayachandran 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.
The court also added that a person in power should be aware of the ability of speech to divide people and must behave responsibly and restrain themselves from propagating such views. The court instead suggested that such persons could concentrate on eradicating other social evils like intoxicating drinks, drugs etc.
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 a similar permission to conduct the meeting.
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.
Thus, the court was not in favour of granting permission for the meeting and dismissed the petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.B.A.Sujay Prasanna
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.S.Udaya Kumar, Govt Advocate (Crl.Side)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 339
Case Title: Magesh Karthikeyan v The Commissioner of Police
Case No: W.P.No.30692 of 2023