Andhra Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Government Order Aimed At Restricting Holding Of Rallies, Meetings On Public Roads

The Andhra Pradesh High Court today quashed a government order that aimed to regulate the rallies and meetings on public roads, observing that the net effect of the decision is to impose a ban on all meetings at public highways, state highways, municipal and panchayat roads. The government order does not stand the test of law, ruled the court.

The division bench of Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice D.V.S.S Somayajulu said that historically, culturally and politically, the tradition of public meetings, processions, assemblies etc., on roads including highways have been recognized in this country.

"These meetings, processions etc., constitute an important facet of our political life. The freedom struggle is replete with examples of processions, dharnas, satyagrahas etc., conducted on the roads which lead to India's tryst with destiny on 15.08.1947. If the political history of contemporary Andhra Pradesh is also considered, it is clear that there were many processions, padayatras, assemblies etc., which were conducted on public roads/highways across the State," said the court.

The court further said that any government order or executive order which takes away the right of a political party or a citizen or a group of people to assemble peacefully, to protest peacefully has to be viewed strictly. The right to peaceful protest can only be subjected to a reasonable restriction, it added.

"The right to assemble, to protest peacefully, to express one's opinion freely is too precious a freedom to be taken away by the ipse dixit of an officer of the state. Freedom of Speech is the bulwark of democratic Government and is regarded as the first in the hierarchy of liberties (Para 286.7 of Ramlila Maidan). This is too precious a freedom to be left to anyone’s unfettered discretion," said the court.

The government order issued earlier this year gave the Police authorities the power to regulate the assemblies and processions on roads. The court was hearing the batch of petitions which had challenged the government's order issued on January 2, 2023. 

Pursuing Sections 30, 30A, 31 of Police Act, the court said, “It is clear that the power given to the police or to the Magistrate is only to regulate the conduct of assemblies, processions etc., more so when they are likely to obstruct /block the roads etc”.

“In this Court’s opinion the right to assemble peacefully, the right to protest peacefully in streets, public places, thoroughfares etc. cannot be restricted totally by virtue of these sections of law,” it added.

The court said though the avowed objection of the government decision is laudable, the fact remains that for decades the highest courts of the land have recognized the right of an individual or a group of people to assemble peacefully and to protest peacefully on public roads.

"In the opinion of this Court the failure to describe what are the rare and exceptional cases or the circumstances confers arbitrary power upon the authorities to refuse permissions for holding meetings. It is also issued by and in the name of the Governor of the State by a very high functionary - a Principal Secretary of the Government and the language used and the dicta – 'It is therefore ideal that no license be granted for any application seeking permission to conduct a meeting on State Highways and National Highways'," the court said, adding it virtually takes away the discretion that is to be exercised by the officers at a lower level.

The court said in effect it directs them not to issue licenses, on roads, highways, streets etc., and to suggest alternative places, for congregations, processions. "This virtually amounts to a direction to act in a particular way which is the exact opposite of what the Act contemplates by leaving it to the discretion of the officer. By an executive order the provisions of the Act are sought to be diluted and also controlled," it added.

Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran earlier had argued that the contents of the government order amount to a stifling of the voice of the opposition and other political parties and imposes a virtual ban on meetings in public places and roads in particular. The order is in utter violation of Article 19(1)(a) and (1)(b) of the Constitution of India, he submitted.

However, the Advocate General representing the State argued that a complete ban on public meetings or processions is not contemplated/ He pointed out that because of certain fatal accidents that occurred in the recent past, involving loss of life etc., in a stampede, the government decided to “regulate” the conduct of meetings.

“The fact that an accident or incident occurred at a particular place cannot be used as an “objective/cause” to curtail the right to assemble, to take out processions etc., on all other roads,” the court observed.

It added that the “cause of the earlier accident or incident relied on by the State should be studied fully and then safeguards or guidelines can be issued to prevent the repetition of such an incident if there is similarity in the ground level situation etc”.

The court further said that, “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.”

Setting aside the G.O., the court observed, “This Court is of the firm opinion that the G.O. does not stand the test of law and accordingly it is set aside. It is left open to the State to frame proper guidelines in the future keeping in view the law on the subject.”

Senior Counsels Raju Ramachandran, Siddharth Luthra, T. Sreedhar, Ravi Shankar Jandhyala appeared in the matter along with advocates Javvaji Sarath Chandra, N. Ashwani Kumar, V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, Syed Ghouse Basha and Ginjupalli Subba Rao.  

Title: Kaka Ramakrishna versus The State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AP) 27

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment