The Hindu : Front Page : Court declines to prevent farmers' meet at stadium

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Oct 05, 2005

Front Page

Front Page

Court declines to prevent farmers' meet at stadium

Special Correspondent

Strikes down order relaxing ban on conducting non-sports meetings

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Tuesday declined to restrain the State Government and its authorities from using the Jawaharlal Nehru stadium here for its farmers' conference on October 5. But it found the Government guilty of "colourable exercise of power" in relaxing the ban on using the stadium for non-sports activities.

The court imposed stringent conditions forbearing the participants and organisers from hoisting any political party flags in the stadium. Erection of arches and stages in the stadium has been banned. The athletic track and natural turf areas shall be used only for sports and cultural programmes respectively.

A Division Bench comprising Justice P.D. Dinakaran and Justice M. Thanikachalam passing orders on a public interest litigation petition from a karate exponent who apprehended permanent damage to the sports facility due to this non-sports activity, said: "We are unable to ignore the fact that the conference also includes the rural athletic sports meet for rural folks. Nobody can deny that an agricultural exhibition would favour the farmers and enlighten them with reference to the advanced scientific technologies in the agricultural activities. It will, in turn, help the State to have more agricultural production, which is the need of the hour."

Broadly, the Bench considered three questions: whether the petitioner had any locus standi, the validity of the September 29 Government Order relaxing the ban on conducting non-sports meetings in the stadium and relief prayed for.

The Judges held that karate exponent K. Senthil Kumar had locus standi, and added that as a taxpayer he had the right to file the PIL because the stadium was built with public money.

As regards the validity of the GO, the Bench did not accept Advocate-General N.R. Chandran's contention that the 1998 Supreme Court order was not applicable to the present case when the Government sought to conduct the programme.

Rejecting the submission, the Judges said the issue before the apex court in 1998 was not whether the stadium could be used for private or public functions. It was whether it could be used for sports or non-sports activities. "There cannot be any discriminatory treatment between private organisations and government departments with reference to the usage of sports stadium. The ban cannot be relaxed merely based on status even though the Government is the owner of the stadium."

The Judges then struck down the September 29 GO.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Front Page

News Update

Stories in this Section