Case title:

Hanumant Katha Aayojan Samiti v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Date of Order:

29^th January 2024

Bench:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen

Parties:

Petitioner(s): 1. Hanumant Katha Aayojan Samiti, having its office at Medininagar, P.O. & P.S. Medininagar, District- Palamau
Respondent(s): 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau
                          2. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar Medininagar, Palamau
                          3. The Superintendent of Police, Palamau

SUBJECT:

The Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand (hereinafter referred to as ‘the High Court’ or ‘the Court’) heard a writ petition filed challenging the restrictions imposed to organize a congregation. The High Court opined that the restrictions imposed must align with the grounds mentioned in Article 19(3) of the Constitution of India. The congregation in question is a peaceful assembly without arms and thus the permission to hold the gathering cannot be denied on grounds of potential infrastructural inconveniences. The Court allowed the writ petition and ruled in favour of the petitioner. 

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:

The Constitution of India:

• Article 19(1)
• Article 19(3)

OVERVIEW:

• The petitioner sought permission to organize the “Hemant Katha”, a religious gathering, in the Palamau district, from 10^th February to 15^th February 2024.
• The authorities denied the petitioner permission on 10^th January 2024, citing the maintenance of law and order as reasons.
• The petitioner then approached the state authorities challenging the rejection, the respondent
• The petitioner has challenged said rejection in this Court, arguing that the rejection does not align with the provisions of Article 19(3) of the Constitution.

ISSUES RAISED:

• Whether the congregation in question poses a threat to ‘public order’?
• Whether the impugned order was within the purview of Article 19(3)?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER:

• Adequate and appropriate reasons were not provided by the respondents for rejection of permission.

• The reasons cited by the authorities for rejecting the permission sought did not correspond with the provisions of Article 19(3) of the constitution.
• The arguments provided by the respondents for rejection were based more on infrastructural inconveniences rather than potential law and order problems.
• Article 19(1)(b) gives them the right to conduct the gathering.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT(S):

• The gathering poses a threat to the law and order.
• The event would be faced with several infrastructural inconveniences such as limited parking, number of volunteers, installation of CCTVs, etc.
• A similar congregation held in Patna led to chaos, which was apprehended by the State authorities for the gathering in question. The permission was denied to avoid a similar situation.

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS:

• The Court opined that the grounds provided by the respondents to deny the petition permission to hold the gathering were insufficient and invalid.
• As per Article 19(3), the petitioners were well within their rights to organize the assembly peacefully.
• Infrastructural shortcomings are not valid grounds to stop the assembly from taking place.
• It stated that ‘public order’ cannot be synonymous with ‘law and order’, which are grounds provided by the respondents to deny permission.
• Relying on the judgment by the Supreme Court in Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana & Ors, the Court reiterated the difference between ‘public order’ and ‘law and order’. Stating that the difference is vast and every breach of law does not lead to public disorder.
• Only when an act where the public is adversely affected by the commission of an offence, such conduct may be concluded as a threat to ‘public order’.
• The grounds stated by the respondents in their affidavit, cannot be considered part of the same order, as per the ruling of Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commission, New Delhi, and thus cannot be looked into by the High Court.
• Although the respondents have the power to impose restrictions, it must be well within the consonance of Article 19(3).
• The order pronounced by respondent no. 1 was thus quashed.

CONCLUSION

The High Court, quashing the order of the District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, allowed the writ petition and granted the petitioner permission to organize the “Hanumant Katha” congregation. It directed the petitioner to provide a detailed plan to the authorities concerned to ensure the basic provisions of facilities to the attendees of the congregation.