Getting roadshow nod like attending exams, says Madras HC
Court’s observation came after hearing PILs seeking directions to frame guidelines for political roadshows
Madras High Court (File)
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court observed that, considering the Tamil Nadu government's guidelines, obtaining permission for conducting roadshows has become almost like taking an exam and passing it.
Following the Karur tragedy, public interest litigations were filed in the Madras High Court seeking directions to frame guidelines for political party roadshows.
When these cases came up for hearing earlier, the state government submitted the draft guidelines.
The petitions were taken up again before a bench of Chief Justice MM Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan.
During the hearing, representatives of AIADMK, TVK and Desiya Makkal Sakthi Katchi informed the court that their parties had submitted suggestions on the draft guidelines. They also stated that the government had not consulted their party members before preparing these guidelines.
Senior counsel Vijay Narayan, appearing for AIADMK, argued that separate guidelines must be framed for events conducted at religious places. He also raised objections, including that authorities must provide valid reasons when rejecting applications seeking permission for meetings.
Senior counsel Balasubramaniam, appearing for TVK, insisted that details of approved venues must be uploaded on the government website, along with information on how many people can stand and how many can be seated in those locations.
Additional Advocate General J Ravindran, appearing for the Tamil Nadu government, explained that the guidelines were framed after consultation with all parties and that details of approved venues had already been uploaded online.
After hearing the submissions, the court remarked that the guidelines appear to make obtaining permission for roadshows seem like passing an examination. It added that authorities must inform applicants in advance whether their applications are accepted or rejected. The Court further noted that each clause in the guidelines appears to be capable of being challenged through litigation. The hearing was then adjourned until tomorrow.
