Coexistence Of Multiple Ideologies Identity Of Country, No One Has Right To Hold Meeting To Eradicate Any Ideology: Madras High Court

Talking about the recent meetings held for eradicating “Sanatana Dharma”, Justice G Jayachandran added that the failure of police to take any action against Ministers and members of the ruling party who had made inflammatory speeches was a dereliction of duty.

The court also added that a person in power should be aware of the ability of speech to divide people and must behave responsibly and restrain themselves from propagating such views. The court instead suggested that such persons could concentrate on eradicating other social evils like intoxicating drinks, drugs etc.

“This Court is of the view that, person in power should realise the danger of speech unflaring fissiparous tendency and behave responsibly and restrain themselves from propagating views which will divide people in the name of Ideology, Caste and Religion. Instead they may concentrate on eradicating intoxicating drinks and drugs which are injuries to health, corruption untouchability and other social evil,” the court said.

The court was hearing a plea by a man seeking permission to conduct an indoor meeting for eradicating “Dravidian” and coordinating “Tamizhan”. The petitioner had relied upon an earlier order of the court allowing a man to conduct a meeting addressing views about Dravidian ideology and sought for a similar permission to conduct the meeting.

The court however observed that while the earlier order was for conducting a meeting about Dravidian ideology, the present meeting was an attempt to counter the recently held Sanatana Eradication conclave. Though the man claimed that he had a fundamental right to conduct such a meeting, the court took a different view. The court remarked that no one could expect the courts to aid them in propagating ideas to create ill-will among people.

The court also observed that since the police had failed to take action against the earlier meeting to eradicate Sanatana Dharma, permissions were being sought to counter that by conducting meetings to eradicate Dravidian ideologies. The court added that if such permissions were granted, it would further disturb the peace and tranquillity of the public who were already fed up with office bearers acting in breach of their oath.

“If the request of the petitioner is acceded, it will cause further disturbance to the peace and tranquillity of the public, who are already fed up by the way some of the fringe groups in support of persons who have taken Oath of office to preserve the Spirit of Constitution, act in breach of their Oath. This Court cannot perpetrate by permitting the petitioner to hold conference to eradicate Dravidian Ideology,” the court observed.

Thus, the court was not in favour of granting permission for the meeting and dismissed the petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.B.A.Sujay Prasanna

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.S.Udaya Kumar, Govt Advocate (Crl.Side)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 338

Case Title: Magesh Karthikeyan v The Commissioner of Police

Case No: W.P.No.30692 of 2023