Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 150
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 151
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
LATEST NEWS UPDATES | No interim stay on roadside meetings-J Venkatesan

No interim stay on roadside meetings-J Venkatesan

Share this article Share this article
published Published on Aug 22, 2012   modified Modified on Aug 22, 2012
-The Hindu

The Supreme Court on Tuesday admitted an appeal from Kerala challenging a Kerala High Court judgment declaring unconstitutional certain provisions of a law enacted by the State to allow meetings on public roads and road margins.

A Bench of Justices D.K. Jain and Madan B. Lokur issued notice to the respondents (who were petitioners in the High Court) and directed the hearing to be expedited. When senior counsel K.K. Venugopal, appearing for the State, pressed for an interim stay of the High Court judgment, the Bench said “the main matter [appeal] requires examination. There is some difficulty in granting interim relief. We are not saying no stay. We will issue notice on interim stay application.”

The High Court had declared unconstitutional Section 5(1)(c) of the Kerala Public Ways (Restriction of Assemblies and Processions) Act, enacted by the Assembly following a High Court judgment banning public meetings on roads and road margins. The law was brought in to invalidate the judgment. The court, however, said since religious and national festivals were held once a year and short-distance processions were taken out in connection with such celebrations or festivities, they could be allowed along the roads. The appeal by Kerala was directed against this judgment.

Mr. Venugopal argued that the High Court judgment was incorrect and it went against a verdict of the five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court.

He said the Constitution Bench had upheld the right to hold such meetings. He said courts should strike a balance between individual rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (b) to assemble peaceably and without arms and 19 (1) (d) to move freely throughout the territory of India. The High Court had not considered these aspects at all, he said.

Justice Jain said “these are all weighty questions, which we will examine. There are instances when free access is denied by the protestors even to ambulances.” When counsel said “it is the responsibility of the police to act in such instances to allow ambulances easy access,” Justice Jain said “it is very easy to say all these things. We have to go by ground realities. We have seen in Delhi they take permission to use 50 ft road margin but occupy the entire road. You take the police to task when there is lathicharge or when they resort to water cannons or tear gas. We have seen police commissioners going and begging with the organisers.”

In its special leave petition, Kerala said the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the impugned judgment while partly upholding the Constitutional validity of Sections 5 (1) (a) of the Act, subject to limitations and restrictions on permissions to be granted. The SLP said the High Court had declared as Unconstitutional Section 5 (1) (c ) of the Act without appreciating that the same was an integral part of the statute and invalidating the same rendered the rest of the statute redundant. The SLP sought quashing of the judgment and an interim stay of its operation.

Supreme Court admits Kerala plea against ban order

The Hindu, 22 August, 2012, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article3805381.ece


Related Articles

 

Write Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Video Archives

Archives

share on Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Feedback
Read Later

Contact Form

Please enter security code
      Close