The Jharkhand High Court has granted permission to the Hanumant Katha Aayojan Samiti (Samiti) to conduct the "Hanumant Katha '' event, despite the State authorities initially denying approval.

The Court while granting permission to the Samiti, stated, “There is no doubt that the respondents can impose restriction, but ground for such restrictions should be in consonance with the grounds mentioned in Article 19(3) of the Constitution.”

The Samiti had filed a writ petition seeking a direction upon the respondent-authorities to take appropriate action pursuant to their application, seeking consent and permission, for organizing a “Hanumant Katha” from 10.02.2024 to 15.02.2024 in Medininagar, District- Palamau.

Justice Ananda Sen observed, “In the instant case the respondents in the impugned order has only mentioned that there would be a law and order problem without describing the nature and its extent thereof. During course of argument they have taken a plea about shortage of sitting arrangement, parking space and shortage of volunteers to manage the crowd. These grounds even if are accepted to be existing are not “law and order problem”, far less disturbance of “public order”. These at best can be said to be infrastructural short comings.”

“These grounds are not at all valid grounds to restricts this petitioner to organize the said congregation or to refuse permission,” Justice Sen added.

Pointedly, the Samiti plans to host a congregation for "Hanumant Katha" in Medininagar, Palamau, from 10.02.2024 to 15.02.2024, featuring Shri Dhirendra Krishna Shastri (Bageshwar Dham Sarkar) as the speaker. The initial request for permission was denied through the impugned order.

The Samiti had contended that due to the respondents' inaction and passive stance on their application, they were compelled to seek direction from this Court as originally requested.

During the ongoing writ petition, a supplementary counter affidavit was submitted, presenting an order rejecting the petitioner's request for organizing "Hanumant Katha." The petitioner thus challenged the said order by filing an amendment application. The amendment application was allowed and an amended writ petition was also filed.

The Court emphasized that Article 19(1)(b) constitutes the fundamental right of citizens in India to peacefully assemble without arms; however, this right is not absolute, and certain restrictions are outlined in Article 19(3) of the Constitution of India.

Elaborating on Article 19(3), the Court clarified that the right to assemble peacefully without arms is not without limitations. It highlighted that the State holds the authority to impose restrictions on assemblies that pose a threat to the sovereignty, integrity, or public order of India.

The Court asserted that no additional restrictions beyond those specified in Article 19(3) should be imposed to deny or limit the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(b) for peaceful assembly without arms.

In the present case, the Court highlighted that an order had already been issued, rejecting the petitioner's application for permission to conduct the congregation or assembly. The impugned order explicitly outlined the reasons for denial, citing the potential for a law and order issue if the event were allowed to proceed.

The Court emphasized that the grounds stated in the impugned order did not align with those specified in Article 19(3) of the Constitution of India. According to the Court, the denial of permission should be based on the grounds of a threat to the sovereignty and integrity of India or concerns related to "public order." However, the Court observed that the respondents' rationale was centered around the potential for a "law and order problem." It was underscored that there exists a distinction between "law and order" and "public order."

Placing reliance on the case of Ameena Begum vs. State of Telangana and Others(2023 LiveLaw (SC) 743), the Court said, "Thus, it is clear that if an offence committed against some individuals, the same will not fall within the category of disturbance of the “public order”. Where due to some act, public at large is adversely affected by criminal activities of group of persons, such conduct may be said to disturb the “public order”.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned order dated 10.01.2024 passed by the District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Palamau refusing permission for the congregation of “Hanumant Katha” as, the same was not in consonance with Article 19(3) of the Constitution of India.

While allowing the writ petition the Court directed the petitioner to give a detailed plan indicating the sitting arrangement viz-a-viz the number of devotees expected to attend the congregation per day to the respondent- authorities, and to further make necessary arrangement, so as to ensure the minimum basic facilities/amenities are provided to the devotees, who will attend the said congregation.

Appearance:

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishabh Kaushal, Advocate

For the Respondents : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II, Mr. Rohit, AC to AAG-I

Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 6943 of 2023

Case Title: Hanumant Katha Aayojan Samiti v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 23