"State's Duty To Provide Protection & Prevent Untoward Incident": Madras High Court On Plea Seeking Police Protection At AIADMK Meet

While allowing a petition seeking police protection for the Executive Council and General Council Meeting of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) to be held on June 23, the Madras High Court observed that the State had a duty to provide necessary protection and to prevent any untoward incident in the form of violence. 

The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar made the observations on a petition preferred by P Benjamin, District Secretary of Tiruvallur District and member of the AIADMK. 

The petitioner, represented by Advocate Vijay Narayan, submitted that they were anticipating some untoward incident due to a factional dispute. However, despite making representations to the authorities concerned, no response was given. Hence, he sought for directions to the police to give necessary protection at the meet.

State Public Prosecutor Hasan Mohamed Jinnah submitted that certain clarification raising 31 queries in respect of the meeting was sought. If such particulars were provided, there was no difficulty in issuing security.

Senior Advocate P.H Arvindh Pandian appearing for the intervenor-AIADMK coordinator O Paneerselvam, contended that the petitioner did not have the locus standi to filed the petition as he has not been authorised by the Council or by the Law. He thus claimed that the petition was liable to be dismissed as non maintainable. He also informed the court that he had made representations to the police against granting protection. The decision, therefore, was to be taken by the police whether or not to grant such protection.

The court observed that the Petitioner was the District Secretary of Tiruvallur District and member of AIADMK and former Minister for School Education and Sports and Youth Welfare. Hence, as a member of the party he was within his right to seek protection. 

After considering all aspects, the court directed the petitioner to furnish details as sought for by the respondents. Upon obtaining such information, the respondents are to ensure that proper protection is given for the venue where the meetings are to be held. It is open to the respondents to put Barricade and have proper checking mechanisms to prevent persons carrying any weapons inside the meeting hall.

The Court also made it clear that the participants should be given identity cards and invitations and only persons possessing the same shall be allowed entry into the premises.

Case Title: P Benjamin v. The Director General of Police and others

Case No: W.P No. 15621 of 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 263

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Vijay Narayan, Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Gowtham Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.Hasan Mohamed Jinnah State Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.A.Gokulakrishanan Additional Public Prosecutor

Counsel for the Intervenor: Mr.P.H.Arvindh Pandian Senior Counsel for Mrs. P. Rajalakshmi (for r Mr.O.Paneer Selvam (Intervenor)),