Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Thursday sought to know from the police as to whether the United Muslims Action Committee (UMAC) and the All-India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) have been accorded permission to hold a midnight protest rally and meeting against the CAA and NRC on the midnight of January 25.
Justice T. Vinod Kumar directed special counsel for the state, who was representing the police, to inform the court about the permission by Friday morning.
Justice Vinod Kumar was dealing with a writ petition filed by T. Uma Mahendra, a resident of Petla Burj, seeking a direction to principal secretary, home, and Dir-ection-General of Police, to restrain the UMAC and the AIMIM from organising a midnight protest rally. The counsel informed the court that Charminar was a communally sensitive and it would be impossible for police to handle the situation and maintain peace if between one to two lakh people converge at a time in the area.
Only motive of petition is publicity: State
The petitioner also contended that there was a high probability that leaders of both MIM and UMAC would deliver inciting and provocative speeches, which may lead to communal tensions during the rally. There was a likelihood that the huge gathering might go berserk and lead to failure of law and order.
Reiterating the Supreme Court order that communal harmony should be protected by the police by invoking prohibitory orders in communally tense situations in the case of Praveen Togadia versus state of Maharashtra, the counsel submitted that without obtaining permission from the police, organisers had already released promotional and advertising material about the rally, which was in utter violation of law.
Mr Mahendra further submitted that Telangana government had identified suitable places for enabling protestors or general public to vent their grievances in Hyderabad and organisers of this rally may kindly be directed to choose such places as identified by the state, rather than choosing a communally sensitive area like Charminar.
The special counsel informed the court that no permission had been accorded to the protest gathering.
He argued that the petitioner had filed the petition with the sole motive of getting publicity
