: Judges of the Madras High Court Bench here have had divergent opinions on many issues in the last 10 years of its existence. But if there is one issue on which there had been, and continues to be, the maximum number of conflicting views, it is with respect to the conduct of Aadal Paadal , the late night cultural performances conducted as part of temple festivals in rural areas.
It had become a routine for the police to deny permission to such events and the organisers to obtain clearance through court orders until Justice K. Chandru (since retired) on August 13, 2012 dismissed a batch of writ petitions seeking permission for the event on the ground that the organisers had no legal or enforceable right to conduct such “vulgar and obscene” performances in public places. “Portrayal of women in an indecent fashion itself is an offence under the provisions of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1981. This Court cannot be a party for indulging in such illegal acts by the petitioners. The long arm of the Court cannot be extended to denigrate our culture during the festival,” the judge said.
Nevertheless, other single judges continued to grant conditional permission for the event until Justice V. Ramasubramanian, on February 28 this year, held: “The conditions to which the writ petitioners [organisers] agree to submit themselves to, are as cosmetic as the make-up provided to the artists who are engaged to perform.”
ADVERTISEMENT
His judgment was followed by Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana who, during a vacation court sitting on May 8 this year, dismissed in a single stroke as many as 35 writ petitions seeking permission for cultural events in many districts, including Madurai, Virudhunagar, Theni, Dindigul, Sivaganga, Tiruchi and Pudukottai. The judge said that most of the petitions were filed within two days after sending representations to the police officials concerned from a post office located within the High Court campus. “This raises a doubt as to whether the representations were sent by the petitioner themselves... Such practice has to be deprecated and cannot be entertained,” she said.
However, in June, Justice R. Subbiah allowed scores of writ petitions by imposing as many as 23 conditions, which included recording the events on video and initiating prosecution against the organisers if they allow obscene performances.
Justice T.S. Sivagnanam, who held the writ portfolio between July and September, also allowed such events on same conditions.
ADVERTISEMENT
Now, Justice M. Venugopal, who has been holding the portfolio at present too, has granted conditional permission for the events by stating that “one cannot assume or presume any illegality even before the grant of permission for the programme.”