Expressing serious concern over “the scourge of incessant agitations that have been plaguing the State of late,” the Madras High Court has said it cannot appreciate people holding demonstration at will in busy public places without any authority of law and justifying such action by taking umbrage under the right to freedom of speech and expression.
Justice V. Parthiban held so while refusing to discharge film director V. Gowthaman from a case booked against him by St. Thomas Mount police here on charges of bringing the entire traffic to a grinding halt at the Kathipara flyover at Guindy here due to their flash protest supposedly in support of farmers and fishermen of the State in April 2017.
Disapproving of the protest being equated by the petitioner’s counsel with agitations conducted during freedom struggle, the judge said: “The learned counsel is only attempting to give a colour of legitimacy and constitutionality to the illegal demonstration held at the instance of the petitioner and others by holding the entire citizenry to ransom.”
Such cheeky submissions were unworthy, to say the least, to be accorded constitutional patronage, the judge observed. In most of the agitations, “one always finds certain self-serving and self-styled leaders pitchfork themselves in the forefront and shepherd these agitations ostensibly for espousing a public cause but invariably end up harming public interest.”Coming down on hard on such people, the judge said: “These self-appointed custodians of public interest, on many occasions, have scant regard for the rule of law and many a time they hold the public to ransom in the guise of protesting against certain policies of the State. They are not accountable to any authority and in fact disturb tranquillity and larger public order.”
Covert agenda
Mr. Justice Parthiban went on to state that the ramification of such agitations was the emergence of several fringe groups and elements who have no qualms for the constitutional order and in furtherance of their “covert agenda,” on many occasions, hijack the otherwise presumable legitimate demonstration by the aggrieved sections of people.
“These fringe groups under the cover of public agitation, indulge in shenanigans and snatch away the true purpose and social significance of such agitations. Ultimately, such agitations driven by vicious groups cause damage to the democratic polity and the so-called public cause gets derailed, in the bargain,” he said. The judge also accused the vigilante groups of always exhibiting contumacious conduct and seeking to polarise the society. However, when faced with action by the State for their conflict with the rule of law, they unabashedly seek constitutional cover when the law hurts them, he added. Agitation is an acceptable means of protest in a functional democracy, but the agitations cannot be at the cost of public peace and tranquillity all the time, he concluded.
