Madras High Court Refuses To Urgently Hear Plea By Actor Vijay’s Party To Hold Protest Over Sivaganga Custodial Death

Justice P Velmurugan knowledgeable the counsel that the petition could be heard on Monday, if numbered by then. When the counsels knowledgeable the courtroom that the protest was scheduled to occur this Sunday, the choose requested the celebration to postpone the protest and have it subsequent week.

The choose additionally orally remarked that the celebration ought to increase consciousness about different social points and crimes. The choose mentioned that there was a necessity to alter the legislation itself, which had been in existence for the reason that British period.

“Convey public consciousness to the whole lot. Ask folks to not commit crimes. Ask folks to not abuse wives. You have to start out from the fundamentals. Lot of issues are there. You possibly can’t simply put blame on one concern. You have to amend the legislation itself,” the choose orally remarked.

Vijay’s celebration had approached the courtroom after getting no response from the State police on an utility in search of permission to conduct the protest. The celebration had thus sought route to the police to grant permission to conduct the general public demonstration on 6^th July from 10 Am to 1 PM at Sivananda Salai, Chennai, or on any date fastened by the courtroom.

TVK celebration had determined to maintain a peaceable public demonstration condemning the current custodial killing of Ajith Kumar in Sivagangai. A written illustration was submitted to the Commissioner of Police, Larger Chennai, which was acknowledged and forwarded to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Triplicane Vary. Nonetheless, no response was acquired on the illustration.

It was submitted that upon inquiry, the celebration was knowledgeable that the proposed venue was unavailable. Following this, one other illustration was submitted by the celebration’s Deputy Normal Secretary, CTR.Nirmal Kumar, however no written permission or communication was acquired until date.

The celebration had thus argued that the authorities failure to think about the illustration was arbitray, unreasonable and violative of the rules of pure justice. It was additionally argued that the non-consideration of the illustration amounted to dereliction of statutory obligation. The celebration argued that the state was obliged to facilitate peaceable democratic expression and couldn’t impose a blanket silence.

Therefore, arguing that the basic proper below Article 19(1)(b) [right to assemble peacefully] was being violated, the celebration had approached the courtroom for crucial orders.