Madras High Court Allows BJP's Bike Rally For Independence Day, Asks DGP To Not Prohibit Rallies Carrying National Flags With Dignity

Justice G Jayachandran allowed the petition filed by A Krishna Prasath, District Secretary of the BJP- Yuva Morcha, Coimbatore District.

The court did not find "merit" in the apprehensions raised by the State while denying permission for the rally. It also directed the Director General of Police not to prohibit rallies where the participants carried national flags with dignity and were not causing any hindrance to the traffic.

“This court finds no apprehension or violation for denying permission for bike rally carrying national flag on the day of Independence…The court directs the police to not prohibit any rally whatsoever whether by motorcar, motorbike, cycle or walk in which the participants carry National Flag with respect and dignity and pass through the highway without causing any disturbance to the traffic,” the court ordered.

When an urgent mention was made on Tuesday to hear the case, the judge orally remarked that there was nothing wrong with a person wanting to go with flags. The judge also remarked that a mere 15-minute to 1 hour rally by the BJP would not cause much harm and the State could not completely reject their request for carrying out the bike rally.

“Anyone can go with flags. There is nothing wrong in it. Them (BJP) having a rally for 15 minutes or 1 hour is not going to cause any damage. If you (State) want, you can make suggestions about the route. But you can't reject completely,” the court had orally remarked.

On Wednesday, when the matter was taken up, Additional Advocate General J Ravindran informed the court that the permission was rejected not due to any political reasons but only to protect the dignity of the national flag. He pointed out that as per the Flag Code of 2022 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, the flag should not be flown on any vehicle except that of certain dignitaries like the President, Prime Minister, etc.

Ravindran submitted that in the present case, permission was being sought for 200 bikes and it was not possible to expect discipline from all the vehicles and adherence to the code. Ravindran emphasized that the issue was not political and informed that a similar request by the Congress party was also rejected. He added that if the party wanted to carry out a procession by walking, the same could be considered by the State within 2 hours.

Advocate Paul Kanagaraj, appearing for the party informed the court that its intention was only to instil a pride for the National Flag and that it did not have any political intent behind the rally. Kanaharaj also assured the court that the participants would not even carry the party flags nor raise slogans during the rally.

The court noted that the points put forward by the AAG did not find a place in the rejection order. It however directed the participants to maintain order while conducting the rally and to not do any acts that would demean the National Flag. The court added that the State should also not prevent rallying. It also asked the organizers to specify the route and the approximate number of participants in the rally by 10 PM today so that the State could make the necessary arrangements.

In his petition, Prasath had that the party had decided to conduct the bike rally carrying the National Flag as part of its objective of spreading patriotism and for this, the party functionaries belonging to various districts had given representations requesting permission. However, since his representation was rejected for allegedly frivolous reasons, he approached the court.

Prasath submitted that while rejecting his representation, the State said that there was no proper/clear information about the route of the rally, and there was no information regarding the details of the two-wheeler and from where these were coming. The state had stated that the roads on which the bike rally permission was sought were narrow and since fly-over construction and road maintenance were going on, traffic problems would be caused if the public gathered on these roads in large numbers.

Prasath submitted that the importance of the Independence Day celebration went beyond the festive celebration. He submitted that the day was commemorated across India with parades, cultural events, and flag-hoisting ceremonies. He added that the purpose of flag hoisting was to instill a sense of pride in the Nation and inspire the public to contribute positively to society. He thus submitted that the party was trying to carry these principles and rejecting this would amount to restricting their fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Constitution.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 312

Case Title: A Krishna Prasath v The Director General of Police and Others

Case No: WP 23977 of 2024