VIJAYAWADA: The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside the recent GO-Rt-1 that banned meetings on public roads, highways, state highways as also municipal and panchayat roads.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prashant Mishra and Justice DVSS Somayajulu delivered the verdict here on Friday. The court said the GO did not stand the test of law. “It is open to the state government to frame proper guidelines in the future keeping in view the law on the subject,” it said.
“The GO clearly states that highways are meant for high-speed connectivity to ensure logical integration and that any obstruction on the highway will affect the movement of logistics across the state. The GO further states that it ‘would be ideal’ that no permission is granted for any meeting on state highways, national highways, municipal and panchayat roads; and that only in rare and exceptional cases, an application could be considered,” the court noted.
The court said, “The failure (on the part of the government) to describe what are the rare and exceptional cases confers arbitrary power upon the authorities to refuse permission for holding meetings.”
This apart, “the language used … that ‘no licence to be granted,’ virtually takes away the power of discretion to be exercised by the officers at lower levels and even directs them not to issue licence for meetings on roads, highways and streets.”
The court has observed that an accident or incident occurred at a particular place cannot be used as a cause to curtail the right to assemble, to take our processions etc. “This is far more than a reasonable restriction on
the right of a citizen or of a political party to assemble and to hold meetings.”
The court said, “The tradition of public meetings, processions, assemblies etc on streets, highways have been recognised in this country and they constitute an important facet of our political life. The freedom struggle is replete with examples of processions, dharnas and satyagrahas. If the political history of contemporary AP is considered, there were many processions, padayatras and assemblies on public roads/highways across the state.”
“Any GO that takes away the right of a political party or a citizen or a group to assemble peacefully, to protest peacefully has to be viewed strictly. This is a right conferred on the citizens by the Constitution. It cannot be subject to a reasonable restriction. The court is of the firm opinion that this GO does not stand the test of law and accordingly is set aside,” the court said.
In the course of hearing, advocate general S. Sriram raised a serious issue about the manner in which the PILs were entertained and the interim order issued by the vacation bench stating that it was not a matter that could have been taken up during the Sankranti vacation.
On the issue of GO-Rt-1, he has submitted to the court that the GO was not contemplated to impose complete a ban on public meetings or processions. “But, because of certain fatal accidents that occurred in the recent past involving loss of life in stampedes, the state government decided to regulate the conduct of meetings.”
Petitioners’ counsels Raju Ramachandran, Siddarth Luthra, T Sreedhar, Ravi Shankar Jandhyala, Javvaji Sarath Chandra have argued on similar lines, saying “the right to free speech is a fundamental right and it cannot be totally curtailed and can only be subject to reasonable restrictions as per provisions I of Article 19.”
“Democracy and dissent go hand in hand and the purpose of the public meetings is to propagate ideas and thoughts among the public and also to bring failures etc of the powers that be. Under the Police Act, on the basis of which the impugned GO is issued, the state can regulate conduct of meetings but cannot ban the same altogether,” counsels said.
