HC imposes cost on man who filed plea with unusual prayer

“Judicial time is a valuable public resource. Every frivolous or misconceived invocation of constitutional jurisdiction results in diversion of time from genuinely deserving litigants,” said the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court while imposing a cost of ₹50,000 on a man from Theni district who filed a petition with an unusual prayer: permission to conduct daily protests till the ‘World War’ ends.

“Judicial time is a valuable public resource. Every frivolous or misconceived invocation of constitutional jurisdiction results in diversion of time from genuinely deserving litigants,” said the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court while imposing a cost of ₹50,000 on a man from Theni district who filed a petition with an unusual prayer: permission to conduct daily protests till the ‘World War’ ends.

The court was hearing the petition filed by S. Prabhu of Theni district who challenged the order of Thenkarai police that refused permission for conducting daily protests till ‘World War’ ends. The petitioner said the protest was for world peace.

Justice L. Victoria Gowri said at the outset it must be stated that the right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to assemble peaceably and without arms were cherished constitutional freedoms. A peaceful protest, when undertaken within the framework of law, was a legitimate democratic expression.

However, such rights were not absolute in character. The constitutional scheme itself recognised that these freedoms were subject to reasonable restrictions in the interests of sovereignty, integrity, public order, and orderly civic administration. The right to protest could not be elevated into a right to occupy any place at any time, for any duration, solely at the will of a person, the court said.

The petitioner sought permission for daily protest extending indefinitely ‘until the World War ends’. Such a request by its very nature placed an impossible administrative burden on authorities and disregarded the need for regulation of public spaces. Regulation of assemblies in busy public junctions fell squarely within the domain of lawful administrative control exercised in the interest of public convenience and safety, the court said.

The right to protest was protected; the right to insist upon a particular public junction for an indefinite recurring protest was not. The authorities had acted fairly by declining permission at the busy junction while offering alternative venues. The petitioner, who refused such alternatives, was not entitled to any relief, the court said.