P. Jaganmohan Reddy JUDGMENT
S.M. Sikri, C.J. 1. This appeal by certificate granted by the Gujarat High Court raises an important question as to the right of citizens in India to hold public meetings on public streets, and the restrictions which can be placed on that right.
2. On August 30, 1969 the appellant made an application to the Police Commissioner. Ahmedabad, for permission to hold a public meeting near Panch Kuva Darwaja, Ahmedabad, on September 4, 1969 at 8.00 p.m. in connection with the All India students' strike sponsored by All India Students Federation, to be organised on September 5, 1969.
3. On September 2, 1969, this permission was refused because the "application was not sent 5 days before the day of the meeting as required by notification of the Commissioner of Police. No. 982/66 dated February 15, 1966. "The appellant was also informed that "holding a meeting with or without loudspeaker, without the permission, amounts to an offence."
4. On August 30, 1969 the appellant had also applied for permission to hold another public meeting on September 5, 1969. The Deputy Police Commissioner informed him on September 2. 1969, that the permission "cannot be granted inasmuch as a meeting was held on 7-8-69 under a similar permission whereafter certain elements had indulged in rioteering and caused mischief to private and public properties, regarding which a crime also has been registered". He was also informed that "in view of the present position, it is not possible to grant such permission in order to maintain law and order." He was further asked to note that "holding meeting with or without a loudspeaker without permission amounts to an offence."
5. The appellant thereupon filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, on September 3, 1969, praying inter alia.
(1) to quash the orders mentioned above;
(2) to declare Section 33(o) read with Section 33(y) of the Bombay Police Act (hereinafter called the Act) void;
(3) to declare the rules Nos. 7 to 11, 14 and 15 of the Rules for Processions and Public Meetings hereinafter called the Rules) void; and
(4) to declare that the petitioner was entitled to hold public meetings on September 4, 1969 and September 5, 1969 without obtaining permission from the respondent.
6. By the time the case was heard, the two impugned orders had become infructuous by lapse of time. The High Court, however, examined the other contentions raised before it because it fe........