K. Venu, Petitioner v. Director General of Police, Trivandrum and others, Respondents.

Constitution of India, Articles 19(1)(a) and 226- Right to use loudspeaker is not fundamental right.

Writ of Mandamus- Petitioner seeking permission to hold public meetings.

Chetur Sankaran Nair, J.

ORDER: Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to compel respondents, to grant him permission to hold a public meeting at Kodungallur on 16.6.1990.

I, for one, am not inclined to hold that the right to use a loudspeaker is a fundamental right. Sound pollution is an accepted danger, and indiscriminate use of loudspeakers cannot be permitted. It is for the authority to satisfy whether in each situation a loudspeaker can be used.

As for freedom of expression, it is a constitutional guarantee and a prime perception, in a democratic society. However, it is subject to considerations of public order, morality and decency. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes made the classic statement, 'if there is any principle of the constitution, that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought, not free thought for those who agree with us, but freedom of those that we hate.' 'Great truths were once branded blasphemy. The best test of truth is the power of thought to get itself accepted, in the competition of the market. The human mind is the marketplace of new ideas. No one can forbid efforts to change the mind of the country. But every freedom has its frontiers. It is liable to be clipped, on grounds of public order, morality and decency, as already stated. Disaffection, sedition, riots, etc. will be valid grounds for restraint.

(Source: AIR 1990 Kerala 344)