Don’t take courts for granted: Karnataka High Court pulls up Hindu Jagarana Vedike over hoardings for torchlight march

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday pulled up the Hindu Jagarana Vedike (petitioner) for putting up hoardings announcing the Akhanda Bharatha Sankalpa Dina torchlight procession on August 14 even before the Court had decided its plea seeking permission to conduct such a march [Hindu Jagrana Vedike & another Vs The Commissioner of Police & another]..Justice Suraj Govindaraj questioned Senior Advocate M Aruna Shyam, appearing for the petitioner, over the decision to put up the hoardings despite the police having rejected permission for the programme."Even after the permission was rejected (by the State), you have put up the hoardings, is it? Where is the value for the rule of law?" the Court asked..The Court cautioned the petitioner against taking judicial proceedings for granted."Don't do this kind of things. We are trying to give you permission and you have gone and put up the hoardings? Have you got the permission? Don't take the court for granted," the judge said.He further asked how the petitioner could put up hoardings of the event when it had approached the Court seeking permission for the very event."Without permission of the Court, you are going to celebrate? This cannot be allowed, Mr. (Aruna) Shyam. This is presumptuous. It is presumptuous that you are presuming that this Court will allow it. Then we are not allowing it," Justice Govindraj observed..Without permission of the Court, you are going to celebrate? This cannot be allowed. This is presumptuous.Karnataka High Court.The Court was hearing a plea by Hindu Jagarana Vedike seeking quashing of the August 6 police endorsement by which permission for the proposed Akhanda Bharatha Sankalpa Dina torchlight march was refused.The petitioner moved the Court contended that the march is a secular and patriotic event intended to promote nationalism and commemorate historical events preceding Independence.They further said that the reasons cited by the police were vague and that no credible material had been placed on record to establish that the event would pose a law-and-order problem.The petitioner also relied upon similar programmes allegedly conducted peacefully at Siddhartha Nagara and Kythamaranahalli in Mysuru on August 8 and 9 respectively..When the matter was heard today, Additional Advocate General Bhanu Prakash submitted that the State's officers had photographed the hoardings and placed the material before the Court.The AAG said the police had rejected the request on August 6, while the petitioners approached the High Court on August 8. According to the State, the hoardings were installed on August 12."My officer is here. He says they have put it up yesterday. The timing is indicative," Bhanu Prakash submitted..Thus, State opposed the plea, claiming that the petitioner attempted to proceed with the event even before obtaining permission from the Court.The Court said the manner in which the hoardings had been put up did not inspire confidence and amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court."Even before this Court were to grant permission, the petitioners have put up hoardings that the torchlight march would be conducted," the Court said..It also discussed the security arrangements sought by the petitioner for the proposed procession.The Court indicated that if the State were required to deploy personnel for the event, the petitioner would have to bear the cost of such deployment.The judge further said the State had not asked the petitioner to conduct the procession and that if the petitioners wished to proceed without police deployment, they would have to assume responsibility for the consequences."You are only asking for deployment. We are asking them not to deploy. You carry on your procession and whatever the names you have given is responsible," the Court said..If anything happens, you are responsible: Karnataka HC to Hindu Jagarana Vedike in plea to hold rally in Mysuru.Shyam then claimed that third parties had put up banners supporting the event after obtaining permission from the local body and argued that the petitioner itself had sought police protection for a programme that had already been scheduled.The counsel added that pamphlets relating to the programme had already been printed and circulated and that the State had rejected the request at the last moment."We are prepared to follow any reasonable condition that may be imposed," Shyam submitted.He also questioned the need for permission to hold a peaceful Independence Day programme. .The bench will continue hearing the matter tomorrow (August 14).