George Abraham Vadakkel ORDER
George Abraham Vadakkel, J.
1. The petitioner, who is the Secretary of the Cochin Branch of the Rashtreeya Sevak Sangh (for short, Sevak Sangh) moves for a mandamus to direct respondents Nos. t and 2, the District Collector, Ernakulam, and the City Commissioner of Police, Ernakulam, respectively, to sanction the use of Mike, Loud Speakers or such other Amplifier appliances by the petitioner and the organization he represents. He also prays for a certiorari quashing Ext. P2 proceedings of the 1st respondent. By Ext. P2 proceedings dated 15-2-1974 the 1st respondent accorded sanction to use the Durbar Hall Ground in this city for" conducting the annual day celebrations of the Sevak Sangh subject to three conditions, the first of which is that "mike, loud speaker etc. should not be used at any time." The petitioner's complaint is against the imposition of this condition, and he seeks the aid of this Court to use mike, loud speakers etc. at the annual day celebrations of the Sevak Sangh to be held on 10-3-1974 (it is averred in the petition and submitted at the bar, that the celebrations are decided to be conducted between 5 p.m. and 8.30 p. m. on that day) at the Durbar Hall Ground. Mr. Ramkumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Article 19(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution and submits that the fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens by these clauses could be curtailed only in the manner provided for by Clauses (2) and (3) of that article. The learned counsel also questions the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent to impose such a condition, and further attacks jurisdiction, if any, on the ground that there are no standards or lines to guide and regulate the exercise of jurisdiction. According to the learned Senior Government Counsel who appears on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner has no fundamental right to use mike and loud speakers in the Durbar Hall Ground which is Government property. He submits that administratively the power to regulate the user of the ground is vested in the 1st respondent, that he can impose any condition in exercise of his power to regulate the user, and can even refuse sanction to hold the celebrations without assigning any reason.
2. The primary question that arises for consideration is whether members of the general public have a right to assemble peaceably and without arms (as envisaged in Article 19(1)(b)) in the Durbar Hall Ground. If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative a further question arises regarding the scope of Article 19(1)(a) which guarantees freedom of speech and expression; whether that freedom extends to use of mechanical or other contrivances to amplify sound and how far the State or its officers can regulate or restrict such user. Thirdly, this case raises the question whether in the absence of any guidelines (admittedly there are no rules or regulations of executive orders) the power, if any, of the 1st respondent to sanction or not to sanction Public assembly and/or the use of mike, loud speakers etc. on Darbar Hall Ground is arbitrary as enabling him to discriminate between persons, without just classification.
3. Petitioner in paragraph 3 of his petition states as follows:--
"The said ground had been used on permission by the Sangh itself on many prior occasions in 1958, 1960, 1962 and 1971. The said ground is used not only by religious/ cultural organisations, but also by political parties for holding public meetings. On such occasions Microphone and Loud Speakers are freely used even till mid-night. On occasions like the festival in the adjoining Siva temple, Amplifiers are used round the clock for about 7 days. Organisations such as the Chinmaya Mission and the Panthicost Sabha use the ground for religious discourses for continuous days using Loud Speakers usually between 5 and 8 P. M. About 15 days back the Panthicost was conducting one such function continuously for about 20 days."
Th........