LexSTATE OF KARNATAKA versus DR. PRAVEEN BHAI THOGADIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B STATE OF KARNATAKA \I. DR. PRAVEEN BHAI THOGADIA MARCH 31, 2004 [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 144-0rder of Additional District Magistrate restraining a person from entering the district on C apprehension of vitiating communal harmony through his inflammatory speeches-High Court quashed the order holding that the Magistrale has no jurisdiction-Correctness of-Held, Courts. in appeal. should not interfere with such orders unless they are patently illegal or passed without jurisdiction- Courts cannot substitute its own view for that of the competent authority-On facts, Magistrate has necessary jurisdiction and the order was passed based D on past conduct and antecedents of the person. Additional District Magistrate (ADM), by an order passed under Section 144 Cr.P.C., restrained respondent from entering the district for a period of 15 days. The ADM felt that the respondent, who incited communal feelings through his inflammatory speeches in other places, would make similar E speeches in the district stoking communal feelings and vitiating communal harmony. The respondent challenged the order before High Court contending that the ADM has no jurisdiction to pass order under Section 144 Cr.P.C.; and that his speeches had nothing to do with communal disharmony. The High Court allowed the appeal of the respondent. F In appeal, the appellant-State contended that the ADM rightly considered the prior conduct of the respondent in gi\'ing inflammatory speeches at several places resulting in communal clashes before passing the 'order under Section 144 Cr.P.C.; and that the ADM had sufficient power to pass an order under the Section. G Tile respondent contended that the ADM had no .iurisdiction to pass H an order under Section 144 Cr.P.C.; and that the order of the ADM was passed on mere hypothetical assumptions that he may deliver speeches which might destroy communal harmony. Disposing of the appeal, the Court 652 ) STATE OF KARNATAKA r. DR. P.El. THOGADIA 653 .~ ...... HELD: I.I. Courts should not normally interfere with matters relating A to law and order which is primarily the domain of the concerned administrative authorities. They are, by and large, the best to assess and to handle the situation depending upon the peculiar needs and necessities, within their special knowledge. Past conduct and antecedents of a person or group or an organisation may certainly provide sufficient material or basis for the B action contempl::ted on a reasonable expectation of possible turn of events, which may need to be avoided in public interest and maintenance of law and . .,.. order. Whenever the concerned authorities in charge of law and order find that a person's speeches or actions are likely to trigger communal antagonism and hatred resulting in fissiparous tendencies gaining foothold undermining and affecting communal harmony, prohibitory orders need necessarily to be c passed, to effectively avert such untoward happenings. 1657-D-E, G-H, 658-AI 1.2. Communal harmony should not be made to suffer and be made dependent upon will of an individual or a group of individuals, whatever be their religion be it of minority or that of the majority. While permitting D holding of a meeting organised by groups or an individual, which is likely to disturb public peace, tranquillity and orderliness, irrespective of the name, cover and methodology it may assume and adopt, the administration has a duty to find out who are the speakers and participants and also take into account previous instances and the antecedents involving or concerning those E persons. If they feel that the presence or participation of any person in the meeting or congregation would be objectionable, for some patent or latent reasons as well as past track record of such happenings in other places involving such participants, necessary prohibitory orders can be passed. Quick decisions and swift as well as effective action necessitated in such cases may ' ... not justify or permit the authorities to give prior opportunity or consideration F at length of the pros and cons. The imminent need to intervene instantly having regard to the sensitivity and perniciously perilous consequences it may result in, if not prevented forthwith cannot be lost sight of. The valuable and cherished right of freedom of expression ao1d speech may at times have to be sub.jectcd to re
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.