CHENNAI: A day after directing the Tamil Nadu police to ensure that no protests both for and against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) are allowed without obtaining prior permission, the Madras high court on Friday kept the order in abeyance till March 11.
A division bench of Justice M M Sundresh and Justice Krishnan Ramaswamy passed the order in view of submissions made by a group of lawyers doubting the credentials of petitioner K Gopinath, who is also a lawyer.
They claimed that the petitioner was facing several criminal cases and that the court should not have passed the interim order without hearing the protesters who are peacefully expressing their opposition against the CAA.
Recording their submissions, the bench said it was keeping the interim order passed on Thursday in abeyance till March 11 (Wednesday). It said both the petitioner and the protesters could submit their detailed arguments on Wednesday.
However, the bench made it clear that the order would not stop authorities from taking action against such protesters in accordance with law.
The issue pertains to a plea moved by advocate K Gopinath who is also president of the Hindu Munnetra Kazhagam, Tirupur, seeking a direction to the director general of police and the Tirupur police not to entertain any proposal to organise any demonstration in Tirupur or elsewhere and to promote peace and harmony within the religions in national interest.
On March 5, the bench observed that the court was not concerned about the cause of the protests but only the effect of such agitations causing inconvenience to the public and directed the Tirupur police to ensure that no more agitations both in support of and against CAA takes place in the city without due permission.
“There is a subtle difference between the right to protest and upsetting the public road causing hindrance to the scores of people. Nobody has the right to indulge in such agitations in a place choose by them,” the court said.
A division bench of Justice M M Sundresh and Justice Krishnan Ramaswamy passed the order in view of submissions made by a group of lawyers doubting the credentials of petitioner K Gopinath, who is also a lawyer.
They claimed that the petitioner was facing several criminal cases and that the court should not have passed the interim order without hearing the protesters who are peacefully expressing their opposition against the CAA.
Recording their submissions, the bench said it was keeping the interim order passed on Thursday in abeyance till March 11 (Wednesday). It said both the petitioner and the protesters could submit their detailed arguments on Wednesday.
However, the bench made it clear that the order would not stop authorities from taking action against such protesters in accordance with law.
The issue pertains to a plea moved by advocate K Gopinath who is also president of the Hindu Munnetra Kazhagam, Tirupur, seeking a direction to the director general of police and the Tirupur police not to entertain any proposal to organise any demonstration in Tirupur or elsewhere and to promote peace and harmony within the religions in national interest.
On March 5, the bench observed that the court was not concerned about the cause of the protests but only the effect of such agitations causing inconvenience to the public and directed the Tirupur police to ensure that no more agitations both in support of and against CAA takes place in the city without due permission.
“There is a subtle difference between the right to protest and upsetting the public road causing hindrance to the scores of people. Nobody has the right to indulge in such agitations in a place choose by them,” the court said.
Get the app