The Madras High Court (HC) has emphasised the importance of upholding the coexistence of diverse ideologies in the country, asserting that no one has the right to organise meetings aimed at eradicating any particular ideology.
“No person in this country can have a right to propagate divisive ideas and conduct meeting to abolish or eradicate any ideology,” said a single-judge bench of Justice G Jayachandran.
Accordingly, the bench declined to grant permission for a conclave focused on the “eradication of Dravidian ideologies”. The judge expressed concern about divisive actions. He also criticised the Tamil Nadu police for their lack of action against individuals from the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), who delivered inflammatory speeches at a previous conclave centred on the “eradication of Sanatana Dharma”.
“No action has been taken by the Police against them which is dereliction of duty on the part of the Police,” said the judge.
Justice G Jayachandran stressed that India’s identity thrives on the coexistence of multiple ideologies, and those in positions of power should refrain from promoting divisive ideas. The Court was dealing with a petition filed by one Magesh Karthikeyan, who sought police permission to host a meeting on the subject of “eradicating Dravidian ideologies” in Chennai.
Justice Jayachandran noted that it is not appropriate to expect the courts to support activities that could incite ill will among the public. Referring to Sanatana Eradication Conclave, the court said that through the present petition, permission to counter that by conducting meeting to eradicate “Dravidian Ideology” was being sought.
“If the request of the petitioner is acceded, it will cause further disturbance to the peace and tranquillity of the public, who are already fed up by the way some of the fringe groups in support of persons who have taken the oath of office to preserve the spirit of the Constitution, act in breach of their oath,” said the court.
This Court cannot perpetrate by permitting the petitioner to hold conference to eradicate Dravidian Ideology, the court held. Therefore, while pointing out that it is not the petitioner’s fundamental right to conduct such a meeting, the court dismissed the plea.
Moreover, the court added that the “person in power should realise the danger of speech unflaring fissiparous tendency and behave responsibly and restrain themselves from propagating views which will divide people in the name of Ideology, Caste and Religion”.
Comments
0 comment