Madras High Court Allows BJP President JP Nadda's Rally; Says Hindrance To Traffic, Free Movement Of People Not In Itself A Ground To Deny Permission

“Just because there would be some hindrance for the traffic and free movement of the people, that by itself is not a ground to reject the permission,” the court had said.

Justice Murali Shankar set aside the state's order denying permission for the rally and directed the Assistant Election Officer to grant permission for the rally in an alternative route and directed the state to give necessary police protection for the same by imposing conditions. The court also asked the state to ensure that no flex boards are erected and directed the parties to ensure that the rally takes place peacefully without any law and order problems.

The court was hearing a plea by Rajasekaran, District Secretary of BJP. Rajasekaran informed the court that he had sought for permission to conduct a rally on 7^th April in which BJP National President JP Nadda was to participate but the permission was rejected by the Assistant Election Officer.

Rajasekaran informed the court that the main reason for rejection was that the intended route had a number of business shops and commercial establishments and there was a general prohibition for allowing four wheelers from morning 6 am to night 10 pm every day in those places.

Another reason for denying permission was that the vehicle that was to be used in the rally had a temporary registration and could not be allowed to ply on the roads. Rajasekaran argued that the same vehicle had been used by other National leaders of the party and no objection had been raised on previous occasions.

The Additional Advocate General informed the court that a temple festival was also going on in the intended route that only the previously permitted vehicles could move on the said route. It was further informed that if permission is sought for any alternative route, there would be no objection to the same.

The court noted that the vehicle had a valid temporary registration till September 2024 and was thus not inclined to sustain the objection on that ground. With respect to the other ground, the court noted that hindrance to traffic was not a reason to deny permission.

Thus, the court ordered accordingly.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.R.Baskaran, Additional Advocate General, Mr.T.Senthilkumar, Additional Public Prosecutor

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 158

Case Title: Rajasekaran v The Assistant Election Officer

Case No: W.P(MD)No.8967 of 2024