Praveen Togadia at a rally in Guwahati this month. (PTI)

New Delhi, March 31: The Supreme Court today ruled that a state government had the authority to stop persons like controversial Vishwa Hindu Parishad leader Praveen Togadia from entering its territory to “avert untoward happenings”.

A division bench of Justices Doraiswamy Raju and Arijit Passayat upheld a Karnataka government order which banned Togadia’s entry in February 2003 on the ground that he was likely to “foment” communal disturbance in the state.

The VHP leader was also refused entry by the Bihar government and turned back from Patna airport the same year. In both the states, he had planned to address meetings and distribute tridents. Later in April, he was arrested by the Rajasthan government for distributing tridents and making inflammatory speeches at a rally in Ajmer.

Today’s ruling — which also gives legal and constitutional power to a state to ban entry of organisations — is significant because of the coming general elections. The judgment, which empowers “concerned authorities” to promulgate “prohibitory orders” to “effectively avert untoward happenings”, would deter attempts at inflammatory speeches and distribution of objects with religious symbolism.

The court said: “Past conduct and antecedents of a person or group or an organisation may certainly provide sufficient material or basis for the action contemplated on a reasonable expectation of possible turn of events, which may need to be avoided in public interest and maintenance of law and order.”

“No person, however big he may assume or claim to be, should be allowed irrespective of the position he may assume or claim to hold in public to either act in a manner or make speeches which would destroy secularism recognised by the Constitution,” the ruling added.

Togadia had challenged the additional district magistrate’s order preventing his entry into Karnataka last year in the high court, which had said the magistrate had no powers to prevent the entry of a person. The state government had appealed against the high court’s order.

The Supreme Court said the high court had erred in its judgment. It said a state government could appoint “any executive magistrate to be an additional district magistrate” and provide such a magistrate with the “powers of a district magistrate”.

“Persons belonging to different religions live throughout the length and breadth of the country. Each person, whatever be his religion, must get an assurance from the state that he has the protection of law freely to profess, practise and propagate his religion…

“Therefore, whenever the concerned authorities in charge of law and order find that a person’s speeches or actions are likely to trigger communal antagonism and hatred… prohibitory orders need necessarily be passed, to effectively avert such untoward happenings,” the judges said.

“Communal harmony should not be made to suffer and be made dependent upon (the) will of an individual or a group of individuals, whatever be their religion, be it of minority or that of majority. Persons belonging to different religions must feel assured that they can live in peace with persons belonging to other religions.” The judges declined to set any “guideline” on a situation warranting issuance of prohibitory orders.