HC nod for CAA stir in Kumbakonam

Justice GR Swaminathan made this observation while setting aside the police order refusing permission to a public meeting in support of the CAA at Kumbakonam. The police had refused permission claiming that several Muslims are residing in the vicinity and that if any hate speech is made, it will give rise to serious lawand order issue.

However, on noting that the apprehension raised by Nachiyarkoil police cannot be casually brushed aside and that this court cannot be unmindful of what happened in Delhi recently, said, “What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It this court has been permitting anti-CAA meeting to be conducted, this court is bound to permit holding of meetings in support of the CAA. Also, the Citizenship Amendment Act is an Act that has been validly passed by the Indian Parliament. If a person wants to conduct a meeting in support of the same and if the said right is sought to be infringed, it is the duty of the police to provide the fullest protection for the same.”

Also, on pointing out that this court had consistently allowed more than a dozen writ petitions seeking to hold public meetings condemning the recent amendments made to the Citizenship Law, said, “No one can dispute that the issue raised by the petitioner is being debated at all levels at present. Writ petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court. Articles are being written both for and against. Leaders and intellectuals are taking positions.”

However, on recording the undertaking given by the petitioner to ally the concerns expressed by the police, the judge directed Nachiyarkoil police to make appropriate bandaboust arrangements for the peaceful conduct of the meeting without any interruption or interference.

“The authorities ought not to forget that Article 19 of the Constitution confers the right of freedom, speech and expression and the right to assemble peacefully without arms. These fundamental rights, of course, can be subjected to reasonable restrictions laid down in Article 19(2) and (3) of the Constitution but not more or beyond,” JusticeSwaminathanadded.