On 5th February (Monday), the Jharkhand High Court quashed the earlier order passed by the District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner of Palama on 10th January refusing permission for “Hanumant Katha” recitation by Bageshwar Dham Peethadeeshwar Pandit Dhirendra Shastri. Consequently, the High Court granted permission to the Hanumant Katha Aayojan Samiti (HKAS) to conduct the “Hanumant Katha” recitation, despite the state authorities initially denying approval for the same.
While granting permission for Hanumant Katha recitation, the High Court stated, “There is no doubt that the respondents can impose restriction, but ground for such restrictions should be in consonance with the grounds mentioned in Article 19(3) of the Constitution.”
Notably, the HKAS had filed a writ petition seeking directions to the authorities (respondent) to grant consent and permission to organise a “Hanumant Katha” from 10th February 2024 to 15th February 2024 in Palamu’s Medininagar.
Justice Ananda Sen noted, “In the instant case the respondents in the impugned order has only mentioned that there would be a law and order problem without describing the nature and its extent thereof. During course of argument they have taken a plea about shortage of sitting arrangement, parking space and shortage of volunteers to manage the crowd. These grounds even if are accepted to be existing are not “law and order problem”, far less disturbance of “public order”. These at best can be said to be infrastructural short comings.”
Justice Sen added, “These grounds are not at all valid grounds to restrict this petitioner to organise the said congregation or to refuse permission.”
The Samiti had approached the court after its initial request to hold “Hanumant Katha” recitation in Medininagar from 10th to 15th February was denied through the impugned order dated 10th January. It had contended that due to the respondents’ inaction and passive stance on their application, they were compelled to seek direction from the High Court.
The rationale to deny permission should be in consonance with Article 19(3)
During the hearing, the Court explained the difference between “public order”, “Law and Order problem”, and restrictions to Right of Free Assembly under Article 19(3) of the Constitution of India.
The court noted that Article 19(1)(b) constitutes the fundamental right of citizens in India to peacefully assemble without arms adding that this right is not absolute.
The court elaborated on Article 19(3) clarifying that the right to assemble peacefully without arms is not without limitations. The court added that the State holds the authority to impose restrictions on assemblies that pose a threat to the sovereignty, integrity, or public order of India.
However, it asserted that no additional restrictions beyond those specified in Article 19(3) should be imposed to deny or limit the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(b) for peaceful assembly without arms, as reported by Live Law.
In the context of the present case, the Court highlighted that an order had already been issued which rejected the petitioner’s application for permission to conduct the congregation or assembly. Further, the impugned order dated 10th January had explicitly mentioned the reasons for denial. It claimed that if the event were allowed to proceed it could have the potential for a law and order issue.
Regarding this, the Court noted that the reasons stated in the impugned order did not align with those specified in Article 19(3) of the Constitution of India.
The Court explained that the denial of permission should be based on the grounds of a threat to the sovereignty and integrity of India or concerns related to “public order.”
However, in the present case, the Court observed that the respondents’ rationale was centered around the potential for a “law and order problem.” The Court thus underscored that there exists a distinction between “law and order” and “public order.”
Invoking the case of Ameena Begum vs. State of Telangana and Others, the Court explained, “Thus, it is clear that if an offence committed against some individuals, the same will not fall within the category of disturbance of the “public order”. Where due to some act, public at large is adversely affected by criminal activities of group of persons, such conduct may be said to disturb the “public order”.
Consequently, the Jharkhand High Court quashed the impugned order passed by the Palamu’s DM on 10th January 2024 refusing permission for the congregation of “Hanumant Katha”as it was not in consonance with Article 19(3) of the Constitution of India.
After allowing the writ petition, the Court also directed the petitioner (HKAS) to give a detailed plan mentioning the sitting arrangement, that is, the number of devotees expected to attend the congregation per day. For the respondent- authorities, the court directed them to make necessary arrangement and provide the minimum basic facilities/amenities to the devotees, who will attend the said congregation.
The court order has thus allowed Bageshwar Dham’s Dhirendra Shastri’s Hanumant Katha recitation from 10th to 15th February in Palamu’s Medininagar.
