Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole Listing All Appeals Arising From A Common Judgment Before The Same Bench Avoids Contradictory Rulings: Full Bench of the Patna High Court. Age Claims in Borderline Cases Demand Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh HC on Juvenile Justice Act Bishop Garden Not Available for Partition Due to Legal Quietus on Declaration Suit: Madras High Court Exclusion of Certain Heirs Alone Does Not Make a Will Suspicious: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Will Proof of Delivery Was Never Requested, Nor Was it a Payment Precondition: Delhi High Court Held Courier Firm Entitled to Payment Despite Non-Delivery Allegations Widowed Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment under BSNL Scheme: Allahabad High Court Brutality of an Offence Does Not Dispense With Legal Proof: Supreme Court Overturns Life Imprisonment of Two Accused Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son

Rejection by Inspector of Police was arbitrary and without authority: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Authorities to Permit ‘Hanuman Jayanthi Shobhayatra

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has ruled in favor of the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP), granting permission to conduct the ‘Hanuman Jayanthi Shobhayatra’ in Vijayawada on June 1, 2024. The bench, led by Justice Subba Reddy Satti, deemed the earlier rejection by the Inspector of Police, Satyanarayanapuram Circle, as lacking authority and arbitrary. The court directed that the procession be allowed under specific conditions to ensure public order and safety.

Competence of Authority:  The High Court critically examined the role and authority of the Inspector of Police in rejecting the permission. It was concluded that the Inspector lacked the requisite authority to make such a decision. “The 5th respondent, Inspector of Police, lacked the authority to reject the permission for the Shobhayatra – such orders must be passed by the competent authority as per established protocols,” the court observed. Consequently, the rejection order was declared illegal and arbitrary.

Balancing Public Order and Rights: The court emphasized the duty of public authorities to maintain order while respecting statutory rights to conduct religious processions. Justice Satti noted, “While public authorities have the duty to maintain public order, they must ensure that statutory rights to conduct religious processions are not unduly curtailed.” This balancing act was reflected in the court’s decision to impose specific conditions to ensure that the procession could proceed without causing public disorder.

Legal Reasoning: The judgment drew upon established legal principles regarding the issuance of permissions for public processions. The court reiterated that orders impacting public rights must be issued by competent authorities and in accordance with due process. The rejection by the Inspector of Police was deemed a procedural lapse. The court cited precedents, including Commissioner of Police v. C. Anita and S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, to underscore the necessity for lawful and competent authority in such decisions.

Justice Satti highlighted the need for a balanced approach: “The only apprehension of the Police is that in view of the post-poll scenario, conducting Shobhayatra is not advisable. However, the petitioner has conducted the Shobhayatra annually, and with proper conditions, it can be managed without disrupting public order.”

The High Court’s decision underscores the importance of lawful authority in administrative decisions affecting public rights. By allowing the Hanuman Jayanthi Shobhayatra under stipulated conditions, the court ensures that religious freedoms are respected while maintaining public order. This judgment is expected to guide future cases involving public processions and the exercise of statutory rights under the Constitution.

Date of Decision:May 30, 2024

Vishva Hindu Parishad,  v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

 

Similar News