Crime Today News
The Madras High Court has allowed BJP National President JP Nadda to go ahead with his scheduled rally in Tamil Nadu.
The single-judge Bench of Justice Murali Shankar directed the Assistant Election Officer to grant permission for the rally in an alternative route and directed the state of Tamil Nadu to give necessary police protection for the same by imposing conditions.
Setting aside the state’s order denying permission for the rally, the High Court observed that hindrance to traffic and free movement of people in itself could not be a ground to deny permission for the rally.
The single-judge Bench further directed the state to ensure that no flex boards were erected and ordered the parties to ensure that the rally took place peacefully without any law and order problems.
The High Court passed the order on a plea filed by Rajasekaran, District Secretary of BJP.
The petitioner argued that he had sought permission to conduct a rally on April 7, in which BJP National President JP Nadda was to participate but the permission was rejected by the Assistant Election Officer.
The plea contended that the main reason given for rejection was that the intended route had a number of business shops and commercial establishments and there was a general prohibition for allowing four wheelers from 6 am to 10 pm every day in those places.
Another reason given by the government official for denial of permission was that the vehicle to be used in the rally had a temporary registration and could not be allowed to ply on the roads, it added.
The petitioner argued that the same vehicle had been used by other national leaders of the party and no objection had been raised on previous occasions.
The Additional Advocate General informed the court that a temple festival was also going on in the intended route, due to which only the previously permitted vehicles could move on the said route.
It was further informed that if permission was sought for any alternative route, there would be no objection to the same.
The High Court noted that the vehicle had a valid temporary registration till September 2024 and was thus not inclined to sustain the objection on that ground. With respect to the other ground, the court noted that hindrance to traffic was not a reason to deny permission.
Advocate Niranjan S. Kumar appeared for the petitioner. The respondents were represented by Additional Advocate General R Baskaran and Additional Public Prosecutor T Senthilkumar
Source | Powered by Yes Mom Hosting
