All Manipur Students' Union (AMSU) and Ors. Vs. Adradeep Kumar Singh, DiGP (V/Range) and Ors. (10.04.2002 - GUHC) - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - 2 is the president of the said amsu and it was organised with the aim and object for development and improvement of good academic atmosphere and moral character of the student community and to protect and promote educational, social, cultural, physical, moral, intellectual and scientific advancement of the public in general and the student community in particular through the spirit of unity, cooperation and selfless services etc. 10. after giving patient hearing to the contentions of the petitioners as well as taking into consideration of the submissions made by the respondents i find in substance, the press release in question was advisory in nature with the intent to make it an appeal. it can be gathered from the contents of the press release that it was a sermon to the student community like that of a wise parents to desist from actions which may be contemplated as unlawful or against the interest of the state. it can not be disputed that police as a law enforcing authority has no locus-standi to issue such press release in the nature of sermon or in the manner of instructions to the student community like a guardian. the relevant portion of the judgment may be quoted as follows :the law is now well settled that any law which be made under clause (2) to (6) of article 19 to regulate the exercise of the right to the freedom guaranteed by article 19(1)(a) to (e) and (g) must be 'a law' having statutory force and not a mere executive or departmental instruction. s.k. kar, j.1. heard mr. a. nilamani singh, learned senior counsel assisted by mr. a. bimol, learned counsel for the petitioners. also learned mr. th. ibohal, learned addl. government advocate for the respondents.2. the all manipur students' union (amsu) being represented by its president, shri w. ratankumar singh presented this writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india for a writ of certiorari or prohibition or any appropriate writ or direction upon the respondents, state of manipur, digp, chief secretary and director general of police, manipur. the cause of action of the writ petition as has been mentioned is a press release dated 12.9.1997 bearing no. a-4/2/96-r/2684 of the d.i.g.p (v/range), manipur, imphal. the petitioners contended that there had been an infringement of right given by the constitution of india under article 19(1)(a)(b) and article 19 : 1 and 2 of the international covenant on civil and political rights. the petitioners wanted to struck down the press release of the police opining the same as illegal, incompetent, unconstitutional, arbitrary, void and not enforceable in law etc.3. although the respondents appeared through government advocate, no written counter was filed either by the state of manipur or by the union of india. but then oral submissions are made by the learned counsel appearing on both sides.4. the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents is that at any rate the impugned press release was only an appeal having no authority of law and accordingly, there is no cause of action for this writ petition, and that the writ petition in its contents discloses nothing to take any action and accordingly it is to be treated as infructuous,5. the submissions on the other side, i.e., from the side of the writ petitioners is that police has no authority to lay down law and the press release in question was a type of intimidation acting as a counter to the exercise of fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution of india. petitioners have led me through laws reported in 1962 sc 1295 (para 5), 1986 (3) scc 615 (para- 16) and air 1993 sc 2592 (para-11).6. briefly stated, the case of the petitioners is that the petitioners as a student organisation of manipur represent the entire student community of manipur and was founded on 28th august, 1965, the petitioner no. 2 is the president of the said amsu and it was organised with the aim and object for development and improvement of good academic atmosphere and moral character of the student community and to protect and promote educational, social, cultural, physical, moral, intellectual and scientific advancement of the public in general and the student community in particular through the spirit of unity, cooperation and selfless services etc. etc. vide para-3 to para-6 of the writ petition a detailed history of manipur, particularly referring to political set-up, was narrated (i do not think it is necessary to narrate the entire version contained therein) and it was stated that the amsu decided to observe 'eclipse month' from 1st september, 1997 to 15th october, 1997 in a democratic way to press its motto and identity for the integration of the country and for upholding the sprit of freedom, security and liberty, both for the state and life of the people but unfortunately respondent no. 1 shri a. pradeepkumar singh, in his capacity as the dy. inspector general of police (v/range), manipur police department issued the press release dated 12.9.1997 and published the same in local dailies. the relevant portion of which may be quoted as follows :'(i) the students union of the state, specially the amsu, instead of keeping themselves confined to educational, academic and other students-related matters are getting themselves involved in serious political and community- related issues which are beyond their purview and scope ;(ii) the act of carrying out agitation on the said issues, the students have been taking the laws in their own hands for which they'become amenable to legal action by the administration ;(iii) some out-lawed anti-national forces working in the state have been trying to brainwash the students and get them into insurgency & criminality ;(iv) the amus's call for observance of eclipse month from 21.9.1997 to 15.10.1997 became anti-national, illegal, necessitating criminal cases against them and the proposed action/agitation during the said period cannot be allowed by the administration ;(v) if the students indulge in this type of anti-national and criminal activities, the consequent legal action against tham will be sufficient to ruin their career as students and it will amount to irreparable loss for the state, society and the nation ;'7. it was contended further by the writ petitioners that the aforesaid press release is quite erroneous, mislead and motivated politically. that the amsu is launching the academic exercises and awareness campaign democratically and in pursuance of their academic advancement and in exercise of their basic fundamental rights as guaranteed by the constitution of india. that pursuant to the said press release of the respondent no. 1, the state police forces have been interfering with the programme of the academic exercise and public awareness campaign and petitioners have been stopped holding of seminars, debate and symposium by use offeree at different places of the state and the police has even arrested a large number of students and implicated them falsely in some criminal cases alleging the commission of offence under sections 124-a, 153-a, 177, 120-b, ipc and other criminal law on unfounded facts. that a subsequent press release dated 18.9.1997 made by the amsu clarified their position vis-a-vis the press release by then that they only intended to carry out academic exercise and awareness campaign in a democratic way and the amsu have no object to raise any secessionist movement nor would ever indulge in any activities prejudicial to the security and integrity of the state and it has never raised any question for seccession of the state from the union of india. but inspite of that the respondent no. 1 by issuing a fresh press release dated 22.9.1997 has threatened the petitioners to be declared as unlawful organisation (amsu) if they continue their awareness campaign. refering to article 19 of the constitution it was contended that the student organisation has every right to uphold the constitutional guarantee of freedom of liberty which can not be treated as violative of any law unless otherwise expressly barred. thus, narrating the contentions, the writ petitioners have prayed for a declaration that press release at annexure-a/2 and annexure-a/4 are arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional, incompetent and not sustainable in law and accordingly, are to be declared null and void. it is also prayed that the press release may be quashed and the operation of the same may be stayed as an interim relief.8. this court by the initial order dated 29.9.1997 granted interim relief to the petitioners in the following terms :'in this view of the matter the respondents shall not do anything that would interfere with the organisation in the matter of carrying out the programme stated above.'9. it was submitted also on behalf of the respondents the said matters dates back in 1997 and as such, now there is absolutely nothing to press this petition. but the learned counsel for the petitioners disagreed to press that since the press release was unauthorised the court is duty bound to give its ruling on the contentions raised so that in future the authority may taken due caution before indulging in similar activities.10. after giving patient hearing to the contentions of the petitioners as well as taking into consideration of the submissions made by the respondents i find in substance, the press release in question was advisory in nature with the intent to make it an appeal. although it may contain some sentence or words which may be counted as objectionable. this court has already opined that there is nothing patently illegal in the press release issued by the amsu as annexed in annexare-a(1)(1) and granted interim relief. the press release issued by the respondents (annexure-a/4) have mentioned that the amsu would not be allowed the followings :'(i) holding of public meeting, seminar, symposium, debate, etc ; (ii) taking out rally and procession ;(iii) flying black flags on buildings and on vehicles and putting festoons, posters etc. ;(iv) collection of contributions, by force or otherwise, to organise such unlawful activities ;(v) use of mikes, loud-speakers etc. for any such announcement.'but concluded by saying that :'the police department, therefore, again appeals to the amsu and its student members to abstain from this type of anti-national and illegal activities and immediately withdraw the call given for the observance of the 'eclipse month.'11. it is true that police can not declare amsu as unlawful organisation although such a statement is there at annexure-a/4 from police. but then, if we go by the entire contents of the press release at annexure-a/2 and annexure-a/4 it will be seen that there was not intention, inspite of the words and sentences used, in the press relsease to threaten the entire student community in general or the amsu in particular. it can be gathered from the contents of the press release that it was a sermon to the student community like that of a wise parents to desist from actions which may be contemplated as unlawful or against the interest of the state. intention of an action or utterance is to be gathered on the principles of harmonious construction from the entire contents of a particular document or instrument but not by taking one or two sentences in isolation here and there. it can not be disputed that police as a law enforcing authority has no locus-standi to issue such press release in the nature of sermon or in the manner of instructions to the student community like a guardian. such activities may come from persons who deal with religious or social welfare of people or community, as the case may be. to that effect i find that the contentions of the writ petitioners has got substance. the police in due discharge of its duties is not supposed to be acting as an organisation of social workers or moral preachers. they are to take action as and when the law of the land is violated or there is disturbance in law and order situation.12. now, coming to the case-laws cited before me i find that in 1986 (3) scc 615 ; bijoe emmanuel and ors. v. state of kerala and ors., it was emphasised that no law/regulations can be framed by an authority which violates the fundamental rights as conceived by article 19(1)(a) to (e) and (g) but it was also opined that law does not include mere executive or departmental instruction. the relevant portion of the judgment may be quoted as follows :'the law is now well settled that any law which be made under clause (2) to (6) of article 19 to regulate the exercise of the right to the freedom guaranteed by article 19(1)(a) to (e) and (g) must be 'a law' having statutory force and not a mere executive or departmental instruction. in kharak singh v. state of up the question arose whether a police regulation which was a mere departmental instruction, having no statutory basis could be said to be a law for the purpose of article 19(2) to (6). the constitution bench answered the question in the negative and said -'though learned counsel for the respondent started by attempting such a justification by invoking section 12 of the indian police act he gave this up and conceded that the regulations contained in chapter xx had no such statutory basis but were merely executive or departmental instructions framed for the guidance of the police officers. they would not therefore be 'a law' which the state is entitled to make under the relevant clauses (2) to (6) of article 19 in order to regulate or curtail fundamental rights guaranteed by the several sub-clauses of article 19(1), nor would the same be 'a procedure established by law' within article 21. the position therefore is that if the action of the police which is the arm of the executive of the state is found to infringe any of the freedoms guaranteed to the petitioner the petitioner would be entitled to the relief of mandamus which he seeks, to restrain the state from taking action under the regulations.'it will be seen that this judgment was rendered with reference to the law already pronounced by air 1963 sc 1295 and, therefore, the latter citiation needs no discussion. air 1993 sc 2592, however, has dealt on a different topic and it states that if averments made by the petitioner in their petition is not controverted by the respondents there is a dictum in legal parlance to accept such averments were admitted by the respondents. this law has been referred because admittedly there was no response from the respondents by filing any counter to the writ petition.13. without going to the repetitions of the arguments as discussed before-hand it will be seen that the press release (annexure-a/2 and annexure-a/4) issued by the police were without jurisdiction and police acted beyond the scope of their sphere of activities.14. with the observations made as above and the comments recorded, i propose to dispose of the petition as infructuous. writ petition is thus disposed of without issuing any direction to anybody.

Judgment:

S.K. Kar, J.

1. Heard Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Bimol, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Also learned Mr. Th. Ibohal, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the respondents.

2. The All Manipur Students' Union (AMSU) being represented by its President, Shri W. Ratankumar Singh presented this Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of Certiorari or prohibition or any appropriate Writ or direction upon the respondents, State of Manipur, DIGP, Chief Secretary and Director General of Police, Manipur. The cause of action of the Writ petition as has been mentioned is a Press release dated 12.9.1997 bearing No. A-4/2/96-R/2684 of the D.I.G.P (V/Range), Manipur, Imphal. The petitioners contended that there had been an infringement of right given by the Constitution of India under Article 19(1)(a)(b) and Article 19 : 1 and 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and political Rights. The petitioners wanted to struck down the press release of the police opining the same as illegal, incompetent, unconstitutional, arbitrary, void and not enforceable in law etc.

3. Although the respondents appeared through Government Advocate, no written counter was filed either by the State of Manipur or by the Union of India. But then oral submissions are made by the learned counsel appearing on both sides.

4. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents is that at any rate the impugned press release was only an appeal having no authority of law and accordingly, there is no cause of action for this Writ petition, and that the Writ petition in its contents discloses nothing to take any action and accordingly it is to be treated as infructuous,

5. The submissions on the other side, i.e., from the side of the Writ petitioners is that police has no authority to lay down law and the press release in question was a type of intimidation acting as a counter to the exercise of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India. Petitioners have led me through laws reported in 1962 SC 1295 (para 5), 1986 (3) SCC 615 (para- 16) and AIR 1993 SC 2592 (para-11).

6. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioners is that the petitioners as a Student Organisation of Manipur represent the entire student community of Manipur and was founded on 28th August, 1965, the petitioner No. 2 is the president of the said AMSU and it was organised with the aim and object for development and improvement of good academic atmosphere and moral character of the student community and to protect and promote educational, social, cultural, physical, moral, intellectual and scientific advancement of the public in general and the student community in particular through the spirit of unity, cooperation and selfless services etc. etc. Vide para-3 to para-6 of the Writ petition a detailed history of Manipur, particularly referring to political set-up, was narrated (I do not think it is necessary to narrate the entire version contained therein) and it was stated that the AMSU decided to observe 'Eclipse Month' from 1st September, 1997 to 15th October, 1997 in a democratic way to press its motto and identity for the integration of the country and for upholding the sprit of freedom, security and liberty, both for the State and life of the people but unfortunately respondent No. 1 Shri A. Pradeepkumar Singh, in his capacity as the Dy. Inspector General of Police (V/Range), Manipur Police Department issued the press release dated 12.9.1997 and published the same in local dailies. The relevant portion of which may be quoted as follows :

'(i) The students union of the State, specially the AMSU, instead of keeping themselves confined to educational, academic and other students-related matters are getting themselves involved in serious political and community- related issues which are beyond their purview and scope ;

(ii) the act of carrying out agitation on the said issues, the students have been taking the laws in their own hands for which they'become amenable to legal action by the administration ;

(iii) some out-lawed anti-national forces working in the State have been trying to brainwash the students and get them into insurgency & criminality ;

(iv) the AMUS's call for observance of Eclipse month from 21.9.1997 to 15.10.1997 became anti-national, illegal, necessitating Criminal cases against them and the proposed action/agitation during the said period cannot be allowed by the administration ;

(v) if the students indulge in this type of anti-national and criminal activities, the consequent legal action against tham will be sufficient to ruin their career as students and it will amount to irreparable loss for the State, society and the nation ;'

7. It was contended further by the Writ petitioners that the aforesaid press release is quite erroneous, mislead and motivated politically. That the AMSU is launching the academic exercises and awareness campaign democratically and in pursuance of their academic advancement and in exercise of their basic fundamental rights as guaranteed by the Constitution of India. That pursuant to the said press release of the Respondent No. 1, the State police forces have been interfering with the programme of the academic exercise and public awareness campaign and petitioners have been stopped holding of seminars, debate and symposium by use offeree at different places of the State and the police has even arrested a large number of students and implicated them falsely in some criminal cases alleging the commission of offence Under Sections 124-A, 153-A, 177, 120-B, IPC and other Criminal Law on unfounded facts. That a subsequent press release dated 18.9.1997 made by the AMSU clarified their position vis-a-vis the press release by then that they only intended to carry out academic exercise and awareness campaign in a democratic way and the AMSU have no object to raise any secessionist movement nor would ever indulge in any activities prejudicial to the security and integrity of the State and it has never raised any question for seccession of the State from the Union of India. But inspite of that the Respondent No. 1 by issuing a fresh press release dated 22.9.1997 has threatened the petitioners to be declared as unlawful organisation (AMSU) if they continue their awareness campaign. Refering to Article 19 of the Constitution it was contended that the student organisation has every right to uphold the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of liberty which can not be treated as violative of any law unless otherwise expressly barred. Thus, narrating the contentions, the writ petitioners have prayed for a declaration that press release at Annexure-A/2 and Annexure-A/4 are arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional, incompetent and not sustainable in law and accordingly, are to be declared null and void. It is also prayed that the press release may be quashed and the operation of the same may be stayed as an interim relief.

8. This Court by the initial order dated 29.9.1997 granted interim relief to the petitioners in the following terms :

'In this view of the matter the respondents shall not do anything that would interfere with the organisation in the matter of carrying out the programme stated above.'

9. It was submitted also on behalf of the respondents the said matters dates back in 1997 and as such, now there is absolutely nothing to press this petition. But the learned counsel for the petitioners disagreed to press that since the press release was unauthorised the Court is duty bound to give its ruling on the contentions raised so that in future the Authority may taken due caution before indulging in similar activities.

10. After giving patient hearing to the contentions of the petitioners as well as taking into consideration of the submissions made by the respondents I find in substance, the press release in question was advisory in nature with the intent to make it an appeal. Although it may contain some sentence or words which may be counted as objectionable. This Court has already opined that there is nothing patently illegal in the press release issued by the AMSU as annexed in Annexare-A(1)(1) and granted interim relief. The press release issued by the respondents (Annexure-A/4) have mentioned that the AMSU would not be allowed the followings :

'(i) Holding of public meeting, seminar, symposium, debate, etc ;

(ii) Taking out rally and procession ;

(iii) Flying black flags on buildings and on vehicles and putting festoons, posters etc. ;

(iv) Collection of contributions, by force or otherwise, to organise such unlawful activities ;

(v) Use of mikes, loud-speakers etc. for any such announcement.'

But concluded by saying that :

'The police Department, therefore, again appeals to the AMSU and its student members to abstain from this type of anti-national and illegal activities and immediately withdraw the call given for the observance of the 'Eclipse Month.'

11. It is true that police can not declare AMSU as unlawful Organisation although such a statement is there at Annexure-A/4 from police. But then, if we go by the entire contents of the press release at Annexure-A/2 and Annexure-A/4 it will be seen that there was not intention, inspite of the words and sentences used, in the press relsease to threaten the entire student community in general or the AMSU in particular. It can be gathered from the contents of the press release that it was a sermon to the student community like that of a wise parents to desist from actions which may be contemplated as unlawful or against the interest of the State. Intention of an action or utterance is to be gathered on the principles of harmonious construction from the entire contents of a particular document or instrument but not by taking one or two sentences in isolation here and there. It can not be disputed that police as a law enforcing authority has no locus-standi to issue such press release in the nature of sermon or in the manner of instructions to the student community like a guardian. Such activities may come from persons who deal with religious or social welfare of people or community, as the case may be. To that effect I find that the contentions of the Writ Petitioners has got substance. The Police in due discharge of its duties is not supposed to be acting as an organisation of Social Workers or Moral preachers. They are to take action as and when the law of the land is violated or there is disturbance in law and order situation.

12. Now, coming to the case-laws cited before me I find that in 1986 (3) SCC 615 ; Bijoe Emmanuel and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors., it was emphasised that no law/regulations can be framed by an Authority which violates the fundamental rights as conceived by Article 19(1)(a) to (e) and (g) but it was also opined that law does not include mere executive or departmental instruction. The relevant portion of the judgment may be quoted as follows :

'The law is now well settled that any law which be made under Clause (2) to (6) of Article 19 to regulate the exercise of the right to the freedom guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) to (e) and (g) must be 'a law' having statutory force and not a mere executive or departmental instruction. In Kharak Singh v. State of UP the question arose whether a police regulation which was a mere departmental instruction, having no statutory basis could be said to be a law for the purpose of Article 19(2) to (6). The Constitution Bench answered the question in the negative and said -

'Though learned counsel for the respondent started by attempting such a justification by invoking Section 12 of the Indian Police Act he gave this up and conceded that the regulations contained in Chapter XX had no such statutory basis but were merely executive or departmental instructions framed for the guidance of the police officers. They would not therefore be 'a law' which the State is entitled to make under the relevant Clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19 in order to regulate or curtail fundamental rights guaranteed by the several sub-clauses of Article 19(1), nor would the same be 'a procedure established by law' within Article 21. The position therefore is that if the action of the police which is the arm of the executive of the State is found to infringe any of the freedoms guaranteed to the petitioner the petitioner would be entitled to the relief of mandamus which he seeks, to restrain the State from taking action under the regulations.'

It will be seen that this judgment was rendered with reference to the law already pronounced by AIR 1963 SC 1295 and, therefore, the latter citiation needs no discussion. AIR 1993 SC 2592, however, has dealt on a different topic and it states that if averments made by the petitioner in their petition is not controverted by the respondents there is a dictum in legal parlance to accept such averments were admitted by the respondents. This law has been referred because admittedly there was no response from the respondents by filing any counter to the writ petition.

13. Without going to the repetitions of the arguments as discussed before-hand it will be seen that the press release (Annexure-A/2 and Annexure-A/4) issued by the Police were without jurisdiction and police acted beyond the scope of their sphere of activities.

14. With the observations made as above and the comments recorded, I propose to dispose of the petition as infructuous. Writ petition is thus disposed of without issuing any direction to anybody.