Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 24110
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, J
Evathoti Sundarah – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 17691/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Bhargav Thimmaraju
For the Respondents: GP FOR HOME
The right to peaceful assembly under the Constitution must be balanced with law and order requirements; authorities should consider requests for public meetings in the true spirit of constitutional principles without imposing unwarranted restrictions.
Headnote:The petitioner approached the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging proceedings dated 30.06.2026 issued by the authority rejecting permission to conduct a peaceful rally. The petitioner contended that the rejection was illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(d), and 21 of the Constitution of India. The central issue was whether the rejection of permission for a peaceful rally was arbitrary and whether the authorities could propose an alternative venue to maintain law and order. The respondents submitted that while they had no objection to the public meeting, they suggested an alternative ground to avoid congesting busy public roads and to ensure traffic management and public peace. The Writ Petition is disposed of with directions to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation and the respondent authority to consider the same in accordance with constitutional principles without imposing unwarranted restrictions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the rejection of permission for a peaceful rally and the state's proposal for an alternative venue to maintain public order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. direction for authorities to consider a fresh representation for assembly rights based on constitutional principles and reasoned orders. (Para 5 , 6) |
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings dated 30.06.2026 issued by the 3rd respondent, rejecting the petitioners application for permission to conduct a peaceful rally on 04.07.2026 from William Booth College to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Statue, Bapatia, as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, violative of Articles 14, 19 (1)(a), 19 (1) (b) and 19 (1) (d) and 21 of the Constitution of India and judgment of Honble supreme court of India in Himat Lai K.shah Vs Commissioner of Police (1973 (1) SCC 227) apd contrary to the principles of natural justice and the settled law governing the right to peaceful assembly, and consequently set aside the proceedings dated 30.06.2026 issued by the 3rd respondent and direct the Respondents to permit the petitioner to conduct the proposed peaceful rally on 04.07.2026 from William Booth College to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Statue, Bapatla, and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2026
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings dated 30.06.2026 issued by the 3rd respondent forthwith direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to conduct the peaceful rally on 04.07.2026 from William Booth College to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Statue, Bapatia, and pass
The Court made the following:
ORDER:-
The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following main prayer:
“….to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings dated 30.06.2026 issued by the 3rd respondent, rejecting the petitioners application for permission to conduct a peaceful rally on 04.07.2026 from William Booth College to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Statue, Bapatia, as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, violative of Articles 14, 19 (1)(a), 19 (1) (b) and 19 (1) (d) and 21 of the Constitution of India and judgment of Hon’ble supreme court of India in Himat Lai K.shah Vs Commissioner of Police (1973 (1) SCC 227) apd contrary to the principles of natural justice and the settled law governing the right to peaceful assembly, and consequently set aside the proceedings dated 30.06.2026 issued by the 3rd respondent and direct the Respondents to permit the petitioner to conduct the proposed peaceful rally on 04.07.2026 from William Booth College to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Statue, Bapatla, and pass….”
2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home seeks pass over to get instructions from the concerned respondent/police authorities. Accordingly, the matter is pass over.
3. Thereafter, when the matter is taken up for hearing at 04.50 pm, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home furnished the written instructions dated 03.07.2026 of respondent No.3 which reads as under:
“It is respectfully submitted that the respondents have no objection to the petitioner holding a peaceful public meeting for expressing his views and grievances. However, instead of conducting a rally through the busy public roads of Bapatla Town, it is suggested that the petitioner may conduct a peaceful public meeting at the American Baptist Missions Open Ground, Bapatla. Conducting the programme at the said venue would enable the respondent police to make adequate bandobust arrangements, regular the gathering effectively, and ensure p
