Kerala High Court’s Decision on PIL Against ‘Freedom at Midnight’ Event
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the exclusion of men from the ‘Freedom at Midnight’ event, organized by the Department of Women and Child Development. This event is scheduled to take place from 10 PM on August 14 to 1 AM on August 15, in the Thampanoor area of Thiruvananthapuram, with the aim of empowering women by enabling them to reclaim public spaces while celebrating Independence Day.
The PIL, filed by Adarsh SR, a lawyer and social activist, argued that the restriction on men’s entry infringes on their fundamental rights, namely the right to equality before the law under Article 14 and the right to free movement under Article 19(1)(d) of the Indian Constitution. However, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar VM, declined to entertain the PIL, emphasizing that the petition was based on an unverified press report.
Court’s Observations and Rationale
The court acknowledged the State’s clarification that the restrictions were applicable only to the designated women’s conclave area and that the event would not obstruct men’s access to public roads. The Special Government Pleader confirmed, “There is a restriction for the entry of men to the conclave alone, intended for women and children, organized by the department, without impeding men’s use of public roads.”
Chief Justice Sen and Justice Kumar VM noted that the petitioner had not approached the relevant authorities before filing the PIL. “It is established law that a writ of mandamus is not viable unless the aggrieved party first contacts the relevant public authority with their grievance,” the court remarked. It further emphasized that invoking a PIL in such a manner is permissible only if there is a lack of response or rejection from the appropriate authority.
Judicial Criticism of the Petition
The court criticized the petition for being devoid of substantial evidence and for its lack of reliable material. “We note that this petition was filed without basis and with no valid, reliable materials. Public Interest Litigations should not be filed in such a hasty manner. Such petitions are not maintainable,” the court concluded, refusing to interfere with the event.
More Read
The petitioner was represented by advocates R Santhosh Mahadevan, CR Vijayakumaran Pillai, S Santhy, Yayathi Vijayan, Mukesh Kumar Gandhi, Adwaith Suseel, R Rahul Krishnan, and Gopakumar D. The State was represented by Special Government Pleader Sreelatha Parameswaran.
