ORDER :

This Court has heard Sri Raju Ramachandran, Learned senior counsel, Sri Siddharth Luthra, Learned Senior Counsel, Sri T. Sreedhar, Learned Senior Counsel, Sri Ravi Shankar Jandhyala, Learned Senior Counsel and Sri Javvaji Sarath Chandra, learned counsel in this batch of matters. This Court has heard the learned Advocate General for the respondents.

2. The challenge in all these matters is to G.O.Rt.No.1, Home (Legal.II) Department, dated 02.01.2023, by which the Government of Andhra Pradesh sought to regulate public meetings/assembly on roads, road sides and margins. Directions were issued under the Police Act, 1961 in this G.O. All the writ petitioners have challenged the said G.O.

3. Sri Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel, took the lead in arguing the matters. He made his submissions in W.P.(PIL) No.5 of 2023. According to him Right to Free Speech is a Fundamental Right, which cannot be totally curtailed and can only be subject to reasonable restrictions as per the provisions contained in Article 19 of the Constitution of India. Learned senior counsel submits that the effect of this G.O. is to virtually ban the public meetings on roads, road margins etc. He states that democracy and dissent go hand in hand and the purpose of these public meetings is to propagate ideas, thoughts etc., among the public and also to bring out the failures etc., of the powers that be. He also points out that under the Police Act on the basis of which the impugned G.O. is issued the State can only regulate the conduct of meetings, but cannot ban the same altogether. He submits that the contents of the G.O. 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. It is his submission that the said G.O. is utter violation of Article 19(1)(a) and (1)(b) of the Constitution of India. He relies upon on the following decisions among others:

i) Himat Lal K. Shah v Commissioner of Police, (1973) 1 SCC 227;

ii) Parmhans Vajpayee v State of Bihar, 1989 SCC OnLine Pat 62.

iii) Ramlila Maidan Incident, In re, (2012) 5 SCC 1.

iv) Amit Sahni (Shaheen Bagh, in re) v Commissioner of Police and others, (2020) 10 SCC 439.

4. Sri Sidharth Luthra, learned senior counsel, appearing in W.P.No.1562 of 2023 continued the arguments after Sri Raju Ramachandran. He also raises similar grounds and submits that rallies, padayatras and meetings are an integral part of the Indian political system since long. He points out that the powers conferred on the authorities in this G.O. are vague and that neither exceptional circumstances nor rare circumstances mentioned in the G.O. are defined and thereby an arbitrary power is conferred upon the police to ban the public meetings. He also reiterates that G.O. has been issued with a mala fide intention of stifling public opinion. According to him the Constitutional guarantees of assembly, protest, rallies and marches are being stifled by the impugned G.O. He also points out that it is a violation of the constitutional guarantees. Learned senior counsel submits that under the guise of regulating the assemblies, State is virtually prohibiting the same. He also argues that there is a blanket restriction instead of a case by case examination in this case. Lastly, he submits that no discretion is left to the State authorities and the G.O. is a virtual blanket ban. He relies on the following case among others:

i) Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v Union of India and Another, (2018) 17 SCC 324, (Jantar Mantar case)

ii) Makeshwar Nath Srivastava v The State of Bihar and Others, (1971) 1 SCC 662.

iii) Vineet Narain and Others v Union of India and Another, (1998) 1 SCC 226.

iv) State of Mysore v H. Sanjeeviah, (1967) 2 SCR 361.

v) Indibiliy Creative Private Ltd., and Others v Government of West Bengal and Others, (2020) 12 SCC 436.

vi) Modern Dental College and Research Centre and Others v State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, (2016) 7