“How Can A Funeral Procession Be Called Public Nuisance?”: Madras HC Dismisses Caste Association's Plea With Costs, Calls It Inhuman
Upasana Sajeev
29 Nov 2024 8:32 PM IST
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by Kammavar Samuga Nala Sangam seeking directions to the authorities to not allow private persons to conduct funeral procession march through their residential streets and not to create public nuisance. The court also imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on the association.
Calling the association's approach “inhuman”, the bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice AD Maria Clete expressed its dissatisfaction. The court also observed that if such a plea was allowed it would possibly result in disharmony and chaos among the villagers.
Wondering how a funeral possession could be called a public nuisance, the court added that the association should aim to address the welfare measures of its members and should not degrade itself by filing such irresponsible petitions.
“We fail to understand as to how the conduct of funeral procession can be claimed as a public nuisance by the petitioner's Association. The petitioner's Association is a responsible body, which should only address the welfare measures of its members and should not degrade itself, by attempting to create an unrest among the villagers, by filing of such irresponsible writ petitions. We have expressed our dissatisfaction in view of the inhumane approach of the Association in this writ petition, which if entertained, could possibly result in disharmony and chaos among the villagers,” the court said.
The court also noted that the association had not shown any legal right to prevent the villagers from conducting funeral possession on public streets. The court emphasised that the streets and roads vested with the Panchayat was open for free and open enjoyment by every villager and other sections of the public irrespective of caste, creed and community.
The court thus noted that the very prayer of the association amounted to discrimination under Article 15 of the Constitution and thus the prayer sought was constitutional and illegal. Thus, the court was not inclined to entertain the petition and dismissed it.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. I. Velpradeep
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. P. Thilakkumar, Government Pleader, Mr. P. Kottai Chamy Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 463
Case Title: Kammavar Samuga Nala Sangam v. The District Collector
Case No: W.P(MD)No.24623 of 2024
