The Madras High Court has ruled that private interest must give way to the larger public interest in a democratic setup, while refusing to restrain authorities from granting permission for public meetings and protests near a restaurant in Tenkasi district.
Petitioner's Grievance
The court was hearing a petition filed by R Muthuraja, who sought a direction to the police and district authorities to not permit public gatherings in front of his restaurant located on the Sankarankovil-Rajapalayam Main Road. The petitioner contended that protests and public meetings frequently held near the restaurant blocked access to the establishment and disrupted business operations. He also alleged that organizers used high-decibel loudspeakers and, in several instances, conducted protests without obtaining proper permission.
Government's Stand
Opposing the plea, a special government pleader submitted that the site had been identified by the district collector and other competent authorities as a designated place for public meetings and protests. The government stated that the location had been used for such purposes for several years due to the availability of adequate space and other requirements. The government further assured the court that action would be taken if any meeting was conducted without proper permission.
Court's Observation
Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that designated spaces for protests and public meetings were essential in a democracy to enable people to voice their grievances. The judge noted, "When such public interest comes into conflict with the petitioner's private interest, to a certain extent, the petitioner's private interest must give way to the larger public interest. Democracy forms part of the basic structure of our Constitution."
Balancing Interests
At the same time, the court directed authorities to ensure that access to the petitioner's restaurant was not completely blocked while granting permission for meetings and that the business was allowed to function peacefully. Holding that the petitioner's request could not be accepted, the judge disposed of the petition.
This ruling underscores the principle that in a democracy, private rights may be reasonably restricted to accommodate the exercise of fundamental rights by others, such as the right to peaceful assembly and protest.
