LIKHITHA MANOJ

KAVYA PREM
LAKSHMINANDANA BABU
FATHIMA SHERIFF
TEAM 7: S10, BCom. LL. B

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

THE PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
IN PETITION NO: / 2022

IN THE MATTER OF
SECRETARY, SMALL SCALE VENDORS ASSOCIATION

V.
STATE OF DEVASTHAN AND ANR.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

1|Page
MEMORANDUM OF THE APPELLANT
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4-5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 6

STATEMENT OF FACTS 7-8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 9

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 10-21

ISSUE I:

Whether ‘Right to Assemble’ and public meetings can be extended to the unauthorized
use of public roads?

ISSUE II:

Whether religious processions can be restricted in the name of public interest?

PRAYER 22

2|Page
MEMORANDUM OF THE APPELLANT
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
& And
A.I. R All India Reports
Art. Article
Commr. Commissioner
Corp. Corporation
DB Division Bench
Govt. Government
HC High Court
ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

ICESCR International Covenant on Economic, Social, and

Cultural Rights
IPC Indian Penal Code
KER. Kerala
KLT Kerala Law Times
MP Madhya Pradesh
No. Number
OLR Online Registration
Ors. Others
PIL Public Interest Litigation
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
Sec. Section
TN Tamil Nadu
UOI Union of India
v. Versus
WA Writ Appeal

3|Page
MEMORANDUM OF THE APPELLANT
WP(C) Writ Petition Civil

4|Page
MEMORANDUM OF THE APPELLANT
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
1. Acharya Jadishwaranand Avadhuta v. Commissioner of Police, 1984 AIR 512 1984
SCR (1) 447
2. Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of police, WP (C)118 of 2007
3. Bombay Hawkers Union V Bombay Municipal Corporation 1985 AIR, SC 1206
4. Chambara Soy v. UOI, 2007 OLR 728
5. Communist Party of India v. Bharathkumar, (1997) 2 KLT 1007 SC
6. Dharam Dutt v. UOI, AIR 2004 SC1294(2004)1 SCC 712
7. Farukh v. State of MP, AIR 1970 SC 93
8. Government of Tamil Nadu v. P.I Ayyakannu, WA 1042 of 2018
9. Himath lal v. Police commissioner, AIR 1973 SC 8794
10. James v. the State of Kerala, (2004) 2 SCC 2003
11. Municipal Board Bangalore v. Mahadeoji Maharaj, AIR 1965 SC 1147
12. Olga Tellies & Ors v. Delhi Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180
13. People Council for Social Justice v. the State of Kerala, 1997(2) KLT 301
14. Railway Board v. Niranjan Singh, AIR 1969 SC 966
15. Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, (1950) SCR 566
16. Ratilal Panachad Gandhi v. the State of Bombay, AIR 1954 388 SCR 1035
17. Said manzur Hassan v. Saiyid Muhammed Zannain, AIR 1925 PC 36
18. Shakaran Narayan v. UOI, AIR 1956 Ker 82
19. Syed Ahmed Aga v. State of Mysore, AIR 1975 SC 1433
20. The Cheif Secretary to Govt. v. Khalid Mundapally, 2010 (3) KLT 1
21. Virendra v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 896

BOOKS REFERRED
 Dr. Jayan Pandey, Constitutional law of India, 52nd edition, Central Law Agency.
 VN. Shukla, Constitution of India,12th edition, Eastern Book Company
 MP Jain, Indian Constitutional law,6th edition, Lexis Nexis
 Durga Das Basu, the Shorter Constitution of India, 14th edition, Lexis Nexis.
 Surendra Malik, Sumeet Malik, Supreme Court Words and Phrases, Eastern Book
Company

TREATIES AND DIGESTS

 Durga Das Basu, Shorter Constitution of India (14th edn., 2009)

5|Page
MEMORANDUM OF THE APPELLANT
  Durga Das Basu, Shorter Constitution of India (10th edn., 1998)
 Tresolini, American Constitutional Law (2nd edn., 1965)
 Chaudari & Chaturvedi’s, Law of Fundamental Rights (4th edn., 2007)
 Dr. Subhash C Kashyap, Constitutional Law of India, 2008
 V.N.Shukla, Constitution of India, (12th edn, 2013)
 H.M.Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, (3rd edn, 1983)
 M.P.Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, (5th edn, 2003)

STATUTES
 The Model Police Act, 2006
 Constitution of India,1950
 The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
 The High Court Act, 1861

SITES REFERRED

 http://www.finflaw.com
 http://www.judis.com
 https://m.economictimes.com
 https://legalservicesindia.com
 https://indiankanoon.org
 https://blog.ipleaders.in

6|Page
MEMORANDUM OF THE APPELLANT
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE COUNSELS FOR THE APPELLANT HEREBY HUMBLY SUBMIT TO THE

JURISDICTION OF THE HON’BLE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

The present memorial sets forth the facts, contentions, and arguments of the present case

Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1949:

136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant
special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order in any
cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.

(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed
or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed
Forces.

7|Page
MEMORANDUM OF THE APPELLANT
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

Devasthan is a state in Indian Union. It is the most densely populated state in India. The port
city of ‘Combay’ is one of the forerunners in the population chart of Devasthan. The majority
of roads and streets in cities and towns in Devasthan are narrow and have been built decades
ago. Due to the tripled number of vehicles, traffic blocks have become a way of life in the
cities. Also, hartals, etc. create regular havoc in the cities. Devasthan is a multi-religious and
multi-linguistic state with Hindu, Muslim, and Christian populations, religious festivals, and
ceremonies are celebrated throughout the year contributing to frequent traffic disruptions.
Vaishnavi Nagar (V. Nagar) is a recently developed satellite city to the port town of Combay.
However, roads, streets, and other facilities of the city had not developed to suit these
changes. Thus V. Nagar became an overcrowded city with narrow roads and crowded streets.

A major festival of the famous Vaishnavi Devi Temple is the Vaishnavi Mela when the
devotees prepare ‘gheer’ and offer it to the Devi as an oblation at an auspicious time called
“Muhurtham”. But the devotees gather on the streets and occupy pavements hours before the
ceremony. The traffic is disrupted and there is a virtual standstill of shops and offices on the
day of the ceremony.

Mr. Ravi Vaishya is a merchant in V. Nagar city and is also the Secretary of, the Small Scale
Vendors Association. His shop is located at a junction where two roads meet. Due to the
abundance of political activities by way of meetings, protests, and processions in major
junctions, there was frequent disruption of traffic and overcrowding of streets which
significantly affected the sales of Mr. Ravi Vaishya and small-scale merchants of the locality.
Further, during the period of the Gheer ceremony of Vaishnavi Devi, all local small-scale
merchants had to close their shops for two days.

A study conducted by ‘The Centre for Development, showed that Devasthan had lost 28
working days as a result of strikes organized by political parties.

Aggrieved by all these incidents the petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation before the
Hon’ble High Court of Devasthan located in Combay praying for an order prohibiting all
roadside meetings of political parties and religious processions and ceremonies which disrupt
traffic and prevent the right of the general public to move freely.

8|Page
MEMORANDUM OF THE APPELLANT
The petition was heard by a bench consisting of the Hon’ble Chief Justice Reghuraj Varma
and Justice O.P. Johnson. The court held that all meetings and processions which make use of
pavements and roads for unauthorized purposes be prohibited. An eminent leader of PPP
made a scathing attack on Justice O.P. Johnson. Against the decision of the High Court, a
review petition was filed by the State of Devasthan on December 12, 2015. Justice O.P
Johnson also made a scathing attack on Justice O.P Johnson made Public Statement saying
that he did not regret making the said judgment. The State of Devasthan then made an
application before the High Court to reconstitute the bench in the review petition as the judge
seemed to have a definite bias in the subject matter.

Meanwhile, Justice O.P Johnson applied for 2 weeks' leave starting in January 2015. Chief
Justice granted leave on January 28. On 2 nd February 2016, the review petition filed by State
was posted for hearing before a bench comprising of Chief Justice Reghu Raj Varma and
Justice Hareender Gupta. In the review petition, the earlier decision was reversed. The
roadside meetings and processions may be regulated by the State, but they cannot be
prohibited. Aggrieved by the above order the petitioner files an appeal under Article 136
before the S.C of India against the State of Devasthan.

9|Page
MEMORANDUM OF THE APPELLANT
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether ‘Right to Assemble’ and public meetings can be extended to the

unauthorized use of public roads?

Firstly, political parties and religious processions while exercising their ‘Freedom of
Speech & Expression’ and ‘Freedom of Assembly’ hinders the ‘Freedom of Movement’
[Article 19(1)(d)] of appellants and the public.

Secondly, political parties and religious groups have no right to conduct assemblies and
processions

Thirdly, these meetings and processions also violate the ‘Right to life and Personal
Liberty and Right to livelihood’ (Article 21).

Fourthly, by allowing these roadside meetings and processions, the right of the
Appellant to carry out trade under Article 19(1)(g) is being violated.

Fifthly, Article 19(1) (a) and Article 19(1)(b) which guarantee the Freedom of Speech &
Expression and Freedom of Assembly respectively are subject to restrictions and at
times prohibition according to Article 19(2) and Model Police Act, 2006.

2. Whether religious processions can be restricted in the name of public interest?

Firstly, the blocking of roads and completely stopping the movements of pedestrians
and vehicles are serious violations of the rights of the public.

Secondly, though religious congregations have a right to assemble peacefully and move
through the roads, they have no right to create unreasonable obstructions which may
cause inconvenience to others. Secularism is a basic structure of the Constitution.
Article 26(b) cannot be invoked in this case.

Thirdly, the provisions under the existing Police Act regarding the regulation of
assemblies and processions are not very effective to prevent mischief.

10 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM OF THE APPELLANT
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I

1. Whether ‘Right to Assemble’ and public meetings can be extended to

the unauthorized use of public roads?

1.1 Freedom of Movement enshrined under Article 19(1)(d) is being violated due to
these processions and assemblies

Article 19(1)(d) deals with Freedom of Movement enshrined under the Constitution of
India. This Article provides for the right to move freely throughout the territory of India.
This implies that a citizen of India has got right to move freely anywhere in India with
reasonable restrictions mentioned under Article 19(4). But the holding of processions on
public roads and road margins creates havoc for the public to travel or move freely. In the
Bombay Hawkers Union v. Bombay Municipal Corporation1, in this case, SC believed that
the public road is meant for passage. Any other right is subject to this primary right.

A tragic incident that took place at Pothanikkad where a vehicle plowed into a political rally
killing several people is an example of conducting assemblies on road margins that can
cause serious consequences. Also, the frequent and regular political party meetings in a
busy bus stop, in front of railway stations, bus stands, etc., cause long time obstruction to
travel public, risking the life of critical patients and pregnant women transported to
hospitals and above all, the risk from passing vehicles to the life of the participants in the
meetings on the roadside. Keeping all this in mind it can be clearly understood that the
public meetings on the roadside covering the road and road margin fully or partially is a
flagrant violation of the right of movement of citizens conferred under Article 19(1)(d).

In Chambara soy v. UOI2, some unscrupulous elements had blocked the road due to which
the petitioner was delayed in taking his ailing son to the hospital and his son died on arrival
at the hospital. The SC held that the right of the petitioner to move freely under Article
19(1)(d) has been violated due to the road blockage. The Court held that the State is liable
to pay the compensation for the death of the petitioner’s son due to the inaction on the part

1
AIR 1985 SC 1206
2
2007 II OLR 728

11 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM OF THE APPELLANT
 of the State authorities in removing the aforesaid blockage. This case signifies the
importance of Freedom of Movement mentioned under the Constitution of India.

Fundamental rights of the political parties and the trade unions to assemble and hold a
meeting on-road or road margin should be synchronized with the fundamental right
guaranteed to citizens under Article 19(1) (d) to move freely throughout the territory of
India. Holding public meetings on the roadside not only violates the fundamental rights of
the citizens but is also declared illegal and impermissible by specific legislation on the
subject namely, The National Highways Act and State Legislations such as The Kerala
Highway Protection Act, The panchayath raj Act, and The Kerala Municipalities Act.
Obstructing roads also amount to criminal offenses punishable under Section 339 read with
Section 341 and Section 431 of IPC.

The Kerala HC in Sankaranarayanan v. State of Kerala3considered the passage rights of the

public especially the city dwellers in the context of processions. It was observed that
nobody had the right to take out a procession without any control or regulation.

Hartals and Bandhs also cause difficulties for the citizens for traveling from one place to
another. In the present case, public meetings and processions on narrow roads are causing
chaos and disruption of traffic and thus inconvenience to the people who need to move
through those roads. Thus, considering these it can be said that usage of roads
unauthorisedly by political parties is an infringement of the Right to Movement.

1.2 The religious groups and political parties have no right to conduct assemblies and
processions on roads unauthorisedly

The citizens have indeed got the right to freedom of speech, and to assemble but that doesn’t
mean that they can do it anywhere they please. The exercise of that freedom shall come to an
end as soon as the right of someone else intervenes 4. Permits are sometimes required for
assemblies in public places, and noise and traffic issues also limit the exercise of this right.
Police are often authorized by law to disperse any crowd which threatens public safety.  Any
kind of assembly that intervenes with public order can be questioned. A person cannot do an

3
AIR 1986 Ker. 82
4
Railway Board v. Niranjan Singh, AIR 1969 SC 966

12 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM OF THE APPELLANT
act that abridges the right of another. The citizens and pedestrians have got complete right to
move through the highway. Any assemblies or processions conducted in a disorderly manner
are not protected under Art. 19(1)(b) and also reasonable restrictions are imposed under Art.
19(3) in the interest of the public.

In Railway Board v. Niranjan Singh5, the SC held that there is no fundamental right for
anyone to hold meetings on Govt. premises, even though the same may be the convenient
place to do so. The court held in the decision that the freedom to assemble peacefully and the
freedom to form unions does not mean that they can exercise those freedoms in whatever
place they please. The erection of statues on the roadside is not permissible6.

Articles 21 and 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and
Art. 8(1)(a) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(ICESCR) also recognize the Right to Freedom of Assembly and Associations. These
freedoms co e with certain restrictions. Art. 4 of the ICCPR states that counties can take steps
in derogating from certain of their obligations under the Covenant, including the right to
freedom of assembly and association ‘in time of public emergency which threatens the life of
the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed.

Under Article 21 Freedom of Assembly may be subject to restrictions imposed in conformity

with the law and certain restrictions which are necessary in the interests of national security
or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals, or the protection of
the rights and freedom of others. Article 22(2) makes a similar provision about freedom of
association. According to these provisions Art. 19(3) has been inserted in the Constitution of
India as a restriction to Art. 19(1)(b). In Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police 7, it was held
that public ways and roads are not the places where protests should be carried out as they
cause hardships to the general public.

In Olga Tellis & Ors. v. Delhi Municipal Corp. 8, the SC held that footpaths or pavements are
public properties that are intended to serve the convenience of the general public. If a citizen
is unwilling in hearing or participating in a procession or assembly, they cannot be compelled
to do the same. Public roads and pavements are places where the public travel, any kind of
assemblies cannot be conducted which may cause difficulties to the public. This situation can

5
AIR 1965 SC 1147
6
Municipal Board, Mangalore v. Mahadeoji Maharaj, AIR 1965 SC 1147
7
Writ Petition (Criminal) 118 of 2007
8
AIR 1986 SC 180

13 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM OF THE APPELLANT
be very well quoted by referring to the principles laid down by a judgment of the Madras HC
in the case Govt. of Tamil Nadu v. P. Ayyakannu 9, in which a Division Bench denied
permission to carry out a protest at Marina Beach. In the Writ filed by TN Govt. against the
permission granted to Mr. P. Ayyakannu to carry out a peaceful hunger strike at Marina
beach, the DB was of the view that the protestors who claim to take up the cause of the public
often forget that the right of protestors ends when they intervene into the right of the citizens
for free movement and the right to no to listen to starts there. A citizen has no fundamental
right to insist that his speech should be heard by an unwilling citizen.

The right to hold meetings in public places is subject to the control of the appropriate
authority regarding the time and place of the meeting 10. Taking out a procession on public
streets, religious or non-religious, requires the approval of local authorities who govern traffic
and public access rights. It is also inadmissible to allow such gatherings on roads, road
margins, and other locations due to the lack of suitable open land.

The right to protest even if it is non-violent and peaceful must be legitimately restricted, to
protect the legitimate interests of persons who do not participate in the protest 11. A right of a
person is always and invariably subject to the right of the other citizens and when the exercise
of rights by one person amounts to denial or obstruction, the right of that other person, the
right of anybody to enjoy his rights is limited. Therefore, the political parties and religious
groups have no right to conduct meetings and processions on roads in a way that obstructs
and infringes the rights of the public.

1.3 The meetings and processions also violate the Right to Life and Personal Liberty of
the Public and Right to Livelihood under Art. 21

Article 21 states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to the procedure established by law. Conducting meetings and processions on the
roadside can cause havoc to the citizens. It deprives the right of the citizens to live with
dignity and without any obstructions. By allowing these roadside meetings and processions,
the Freedom of the Appellant to carry out trade under Art. 19(1)(g) is violated and obstructed.
In Communist Party of India v. Bharath Kumar12, it was held that “there cannot be any doubt
that the fundamental rights of the people as a whole cannot be subservient to the claims of
9
Writ Appeal 1042 of 2018
10
Himmat lal v. Police Commr., AIR 1973 SC 8794
11
Right to protest or Right to Obstruct: An analysis of the Shaheen Bagh Judgement, available at:
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/ (last visited on July 11, 2022)
12
(1997) 2 K.L.T. 1007 (SC)

14 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM OF THE APPELLANT
Fundamental rights of an individual or only a section of the public”. Therefore, the
fundamental rights claimed by review petitioners and their beneficiaries should yield to this
more important right I.e., the right to life under Art. 21. Holding of public meetings and
forceful inclusion of public assembled for their purposes at junctions as the audience is not
only a violation of and human rights but is a public nuisance. Right to Life guaranteed under
Art. 21 of the Constitution of India of the sick, injured and pregnant women, who while under
transport are held up in traffic blocks leading to delay in medical aid and consequent death 13.
A sessions court in a case upheld the jail sentence of a man, convicted of riding a motorcycle
in an inebriated state, observing that the human fundamental right to life and liberty is
guaranteed by the Constitution14. Fundamental Right means enjoyment of one’s right and
does not amount to or allow that person under that guise to deny the right of his brothers and
sisters.

1.4 The freedom of the Appellant to carry out trade under Article 19(1)(g) is violated

The appellants are from a small town with narrow roads depending on income generated by
employment in occupations or trade. Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India states that it
is the fundamental right of the citizens to practice any profession or to carry on any
occupation, trade, or business. Unauthorized use of roads for assemblies and procession will
affect the trade of people having shops on roadsides. This city's traders, whose shops line the
narrow roads where these meetings, assemblies, and processions are held, have the right to
practice their trade, occupation, or profession.

Public meetings and demonstrations violate the freedom of profession, trade, and business not
only of shopkeepers, such as the appellant and local merchants but also of those who cannot
get to their offices or workplaces due to traffic jams. They have the right to work and earn a
living from their trade, and the right cannot be trampled by big processions and political
meetings. Though 301-304 are not fundamental rights, a restriction that is unreasonable under
Article 304(b) from the standpoint of trade as such would at the same time have a direct
impact upon the freedom of business of an individual under Article 19(1)(g) 15. It is therefore
necessary to prohibit roadside political meetings and demonstrations to protect the right of
the appellant and local merchants to carry on trade under Art 19(1)(g).

13
The Chief secretary to Government v. Khalid Mundappilly, 2010(3) KLT 1
14
Road users have fundamental right to life: Court, available at: https://m.economictimes.com (last visited on
July 11, 2022)
15
Syed Ahmed Aga v. State of Mysore, AIR 1975 SC 1433

15 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM OF THE APPELLANT
1.5 The right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to freedom of assembly
guaranteed in Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) respectively are subject to restrictions
and sometimes prohibition, as stipulated in Article 19(3), Article 19(2) and the
Model Police Act, 2006.

Article 19(2) imposes certain restrictions upon the freedom of speech and expression of the
citizens. These restrictions can be imposed on any speech and expression or assembly in the
interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with
foreign states, public order, decency, and morality, or about contempt of court, defamation or,
incitement to an offense.

As the Appellants are aware, authorities have the authority to impose restrictions, but in the
peculiar circumstance of the place and its citizens, even reasonable restrictions will not
suffice and the only alternative would be to ban such activities as unconstitutional in places
unsuitable for their purposes. Prohibition is considered to be a reasonable restriction in a state
of Emergency16.

In the case of James v. the State of Kerala17, it was held that no one has the right to cause
inconvenience to others in the name of a hartal, bandh, or strike, or to threaten or
apprehension of risk to any citizen’s life, liberty, or property, or to destroy life and property,

least of all to any government or public property. Citizens have fundamental rights under
Article 19. Any individual who is not and cannot be an Indian citizen does not have access to
or can claim the rights provided by Article 19 (1). A statutory right conferred on individuals
or citizens, as opposed to a fundamental right, can be revoked or taken away by legislation.
Any legislation cannot take away a person’s fundamental rights; it can only put reasonable
restrictions on their exercise18.

Whether a restriction, in effect, amounts to a prohibition, is a question of fact, to be

determined according to the circumstance of each case, having regard to the ambit of the
right19 and the effect of the restriction upon the exercise of that right.20
“Public Order” is synonymous with public peace, safety, and tranquillity. As a result of these
public meetings and processions, traffic and chaos disrupt peace, safety, and tranquillity
Restriction on the meetings and processions on the roadside is thus justified as ‘Public
16
Farukh v. State of M.P, AIR 1970 SC 93
17
(2004) 2 SCC 2003
18
Dharam Dutt v. UOI, AIR 2004 SC 1294: (2004) 1 SCC 712
19
Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, (1950) SCR 566
20
Virendra v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 896

16 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM OF THE APPELLANT
Disorder’ is a ground for restriction under Article 19(2) of the Constitution., resulting in
public disorder.

Taking this into consideration at times Freedom is guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(a) and Art. (1)
(b) can be restricted on reasonable grounds. In certain situations, a restriction may also mean
Total Prohibition. In this case assemblies and processions being conducted on roadside and
road margins affects the public order as mentioned under Art. 19(3) of the Indian
Constitution. Therefore, it is necessary to ban such assemblies and processions.

The Model Police Act, of 2006 has got many provisions that restrict the assemblies and
processions. Police officials have to regulate the functioning of public assemblies and
processions in an orderly manner. Whatever the situation, no processions or assemblies can
be permitted to be conducted on roads by way of obstructing the use of roads. Such meetings
can be held in places where it is meant to be held. Under Section 19 (iii) of the Police Act the
police have to prevent obstruction on the occasion of all processions and assemblies and in
the neighborhood of all places of worship during the time of public worship, and in all cases
when any street or public place or place of the public resort may be thronged or liable to be
obstructed. The organizers of these assemblies or processions are bound to give prior notice
to the police authorities. If the police apprehend that there would be any serious public
disorder or serious property damage, they shall take all precautions. The Police would be well
within their authority to give direction as to the timing of the procession and the members of
the marchers who are permitted to go and the police can prohibit it from entering any public
place or direction in which direction the processions shall go.

Section 57 of the Model Police Act, 2006 is about the Role, Function, and Duties of Police.
Section 57(b) of the Act gives the Police the duty to promote and preserve public order. Sec.
57(k) of the Act gives the Police duty to facilitate orderly movement of people and vehicles
and to control and regulate traffic on roads and highways. Section 92 – Preservation of Order
and Regulation of Traffic.

The Commissioner of Police may, from time to time, make rules and regulations, not
inconsistent with this Act, and subject to any Government orders, in respect of the following:
(a) for regulating the use of public roads, streets, and public places by persons walking,
driving, cycling, or accompanying animals, and for parking of vehicles including bicycles, to
ensure smooth and orderly movement of traffic;

17 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM OF THE APPELLANT
(b) regulating the entry or exit at any place of public amusement, public entertainment, or at
any public meeting or assembly, and providing for the maintenance of public peace and
prevention of disturbance at such places.
Indeed, absolute freedoms will always be damaging to society’s smooth functioning because

every individual’s interests would be emphasized.

ISSUE 2

2. Whether religious processions can be restricted in the name of public interest?

18 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM OF THE APPELLANT
 2.1 Blocking of roads is against the rights of the public
Vaishnavi Nagar, a satellite city to the port town of Combay in the state of Devasthan
developed with the massive industrial development of Combay. Roads, streets, and other
facilities of the city however had not developed to suit these changes. Thus V. Nagar
became an overcrowded city with narrow roads and crowded streets. Roads are not very
much wide and are not sufficient to accommodate the ever-increasing vehicular traffic. If
any of these important roads are blocked the entire flow of traffic gets paralyzed. One of the
important problems faced by the general public is that these roads are often blocked by the
authorities to facilitate the political parties or other organizations to take out processions or
demonstrations through public streets. Whenever a procession or demonstration passes
through any of these roads the entire vehicular traffic is blocked.

While hearing a PIL filed by a commuter against blocking roads connecting Delhi with
Noida by farmers, a Bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul made the Haryana
Government party to the case and passed a verdict that public roads can’t be blocked during
protests and there should be free flow of traffic on roads.

More than five lakhs of devotees spill over to roads and streets of the city during the ‘gheer
ceremony’. Due to this traffic is disrupted and shops and offices are just opened for the sake
of their functioning. This affects the trade of shopkeepers and also people who need to reach
their destinations on a time-bound basis are not able to reach there. This is absolutely a
violation of public rights. Those who want urgent medical attention or to attend public
examination or interviews or to reach the Airport to catch the flight find it extremely
difficult and the participants in demonstration and procession prevent these persons from
going to their destination and the authorities are not doing anything to avoid the hardships
of the public.21

These demonstrations obstruct the free movement of pedestrians and vehicular traffic.
Article 25 gives all persons the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess,
practice, and propagate religion. But this right is not absolute. As the opening words of
Article 25(1) make clear, this right is subject to public order, morality, and health, as well as
other provisions of Part III. In other words, the right granted under Art.25 (1) may be
curtailed if the exercise of that right would violate or not be per public needs.
21
Peoples Council for Social Justice v. State of Kerala, 1997 (2) KLT 301

19 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM OF THE APPELLANT
 2.2 Congregations of religion are not permitted to inflict inconvenience on others.

The freedom of religion is subject to public order, morality, and public health. It is an
extraordinary situation. To safeguard the health of the society, restrictions have been imposed
by closing down all the places of worship for the public, including the holding of religious
congregations/gatherings,” said the division bench of Justices Rajiv Sharma and Ajay Tiwari
while dismissing a petition seeking relaxations in lockdown for the places of worship. Every
religious institution has a right to conduct a religious procession with its appropriate
observances along the highway. Persons of whatever sect are entitled to conduct religious
processions through public streets as long as they do not interfere with the ordinary use of
such streets by the public and are subject to such directions as the Magistrates may lawfully
give to prevent obstructions of the thoroughfare or breaches of the public peace22.

The right to take procession along the highway is a right of the citizens but such a right
should not be exercised in annoyance to others. But in V. Nagar, on many occasions’
demonstrations and processions along the public roads continue for hours together and almost
all the main roads are blocked and pedestrians and vehicles are not allowed to pass through
the roads.

In Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. the State of Bombay23, the Supreme Court stated that Article
25 guarantees every person (not only citizens) the freedom of conscience and right to freely
profess, practice, and propagate religion imposed with certain restrictions by the State. These
restrictions are:

1. Public order, morality and health, and other provisions of the Constitution (Clause
1 of Article 25).

2. Laws relating to or restricting any economic, financial, political, or other secular

activities associated with religious practices. (Clause 2(a) of Article 25).

3. Social welfare and reform that might interfere with religious practices.

22
Said Manzur Hassan v. Saiyid Muhammed Zamain, AIR 1925 PC 36
23
AIR 1954, 388, 1954 SCR 1035

20 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM OF THE APPELLANT
The passengers and other citizens have the same right to use roads as the participants of
demonstrations and processions. In a city like V. Nagar where there are no link roads, it
would be difficult for ordinary persons to reach their destinations when there is a
demonstration or procession covering entire streets for hours together. The restriction
mentioned in Article 25 also points out that restrictions can be imposed on processions if they
are against public order.

In this case, the ‘gheer ceremony’ being conducted on the roadside blocks the road and
disrupts the traffic. Any act that takes away the rights of other citizens can be prohibited. In
Olga Tellis & Ors v. Bombay Municipal Corporation24, the Supreme Court held that
footpaths or pavements are public properties that are intended to serve the convenience of the
general public. They are not laid for private use and indeed their use for a private purpose
frustrates the very object for which they are carved out for portions of public streets.

Since freedom belongs to every person, the freedom of one cannot encroach upon similar
freedom belonging to other persons. The concept of secularism visualized in the Constitution
was taken by political leaders as patronage to every religion and religious group even to
detriment of public interest at large. The state treats equally all religions and religious
denominations since religion is a matter of individual faith and cannot be mixed with secular
activities.

2.3 Effectiveness of the Devasthan Police Act

According to Section 149 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 19 of the police
action, the Police officials have to prevent the commission of any public nuisance. In the
interest of the public, the Commissioner of police under the Devasthan Police Act is invested
with the power to deny permission to an assembly in the public interest.

Under Section 19(iii) of the Police Act the police have to prevent obstruction on the occasion
of all processions and assemblies and in the neighborhood of all places of worship during the
time of public worship, and in all cases when any street or public place or place of the public
resort may be thronged or liable to be obstructed.
In Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta25, the Supreme
Court held that the human skulls were not an essential religious rite of the followers of Anand

24
AIR 1986 SC 180
25
1984 AIR 512, 1984 SCR (1) 447

21 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM OF THE APPELLANT
Marga and hence prohibiting such procession in the interest of public order and morality was
not violative of the rights of the petitioners under Art. 25 and Art.26.

Due to the influence of the political parties and the large group of devotees, the police can't
handle the situation of road blockade and the police become silent spectators of the
unauthorized use of highways. The existing provisions of law under the Devasthan Police Act
are not very effective to control mischief.

22 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM OF THE APPELLANT
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and
authorities cited this Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare that:

1. The right to assembly does not extend to the unauthorized use of public roads.
2. The right to religion under Article 25 does not extend to holding processions and
festivals.

And pass any other order in favor of the petitioners that it may deem fit in the ends of justice,
equity, and good conscience. All of which are respectfully submitted.

Place: S/d
Date: (Counsel of appellants)

23 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM OF THE APPELLANT