“Can Have Communal Overtones’: Delhi High Court Refuses Permission For Muslim Mahapanchayat Meeting On Oct 29
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to grant permission to an organization to hold a public meeting (All India Muslim Mahapanchayat) at the Ramlila Ground on October 29. Justice Subramonium Prasad upheld the Delhi Police’s decision which revoked the permission granted to the organization for holding the meeting, observing that it cannot be held to be arbitrary. It was the police’s...
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to grant permission to an organization to hold a public meeting (All India Muslim Mahapanchayat) at the Ramlila Ground on October 29.
Justice Subramonium Prasad upheld the Delhi Police’s decision which revoked the permission granted to the organization for holding the meeting, observing that it cannot be held to be arbitrary.
It was the police’s stand that the proposed event was "communal".
The petition was moved by Mission Save Constitution, an organization which is found by Advocate Mehmood Pracha. It claims to work for creating awareness among the masses, especially the depressed classes, about their constitutional rights.
Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the period of end of Shraadh till Diwali is extremely auspicious for people belonging to the Hindu Community and that the posters of the organization show that the event can have communal and religious overtones.
The court refused to grant permission for October 29 noting that during that time, several festivals are to be celebrated.
“Though the event has been styled for the purpose of educating people of their constitutional rights but the tenor of posters which have been produced by the learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 indicates that the event in question can have communal over-tones which can result in increasing communal tensions in the Old Delhi area, which is a “sensitive” area as people of different religions live here and communal violence in the area is not unknown,” the court said.
The court observed that the apprehension of the SHO of the concerned area cannot be washed away by constitutional courts. It further said that though there is freedom to raise voice but the possibility of communal tension cannot be ignored.
”Though Article 19(1) (a) & (b) of the Constitution of India gives freedom to raise one’s voice but at the same time, the possibility of the event creating a law and order situation which can result in loss of lives, property, etc is 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 cannot be said to be arbitrary,” the court said.
While disposing of the plea, the court however said that it is always open to the authorities, after the festive season is over, to consider afresh the organization’s plea for permission to hold the event.
Justice Prasad said that the organisation’s fresh plea for permission will be considered by the authorities on its own merits, subject to the organisation providing a list of speakers and an undertaking that the meeting will not cause any communal tension.
The proposed event was scheduled for October 29. It was the organisation’s case that it sought to initiate a series of events, starting from the event, for strengthening of all weaker sections, including Muslim and other minority communities like SC, ST, OBC and that voices of “all the oppressed people” would be raised in the meeting.
The organization had challenged the Delhi Police’s decision to revoke the permission which was earlier granted. This was after the organization refused to accept Police’s suggestion to change the nature of the call raise for the meeting.
It was the organization’s case that the police’s letter revoking the permission suffered from “serious legal and constitutional infirmities” and was thus, liable to be set aside.
“That the Muslim community is one of the weaker sections of the society, and is being attempted to be used as a fulcrum of polarizing the Indian Polity, similar to the other weaker sections of the society such as the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, and other religious minorities,” the plea read.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. R.H.A. Sikander, Mr. Jatin Bhatt, Mr. Sanawar, Mr. Harshit Gahlot, Advocates.
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Apoorv Kurup, CGSC with Mr. Akhil Hasija, Advocate for R-1. Mr. Satyakam, ASC for GNCTD. Ms. Khushboo Nahar, ASC for MCD Mr. Kunal, Advocate for R-3.
Title: MISSION SAVE CONSTITUTION v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1024