The Supreme Court on Friday directed competent authorities in states/Union territories to decide within three days of an application seeking permission to conduct ‘yatras’ or public meetings aimed at educating people on elections.
The direction by a bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehra came on a plea seeking the quashing of the prohibitory orders issued under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) solely on the grounds of ongoing general election to Lok Sabha.
Posting the matter for further hearing after two weeks, the bench expressed surprise over blanket orders being issued to prohibit any assembly during the polls and asked, “How can such orders be passed.”
In the course of the hearing advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing for the petitioner – social activist Aruna Roy and Nikhil Dey – told the bench that in the last six months, blanket orders under section 144 of CrPC are being issued for the entire duration of elections from the time of announcement of the election by the Election Commission till the end of elections – terminating with the embouchement of results.
The bench was told that such orders prohibit all kinds of assemblies, meetings and demonstrations during the duration of elections.
Bhushan said that both Aruna Roy and Nikhil Dey had applied for permission to conduct a ‘yatra’ to educate voters about their democratic rights during last year’s Assembly election, but permission was not granted. He further said that the authorities must decide on such applications within a stipulated time.
The social activist Aruna Roy and Nikhil Dey have approached the top court seeking direction to check the indiscriminate practice of the Magistrates and State governments passing “blanket orders” under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prohibiting meetings, gatherings, processions or ‘dharnas’ ahead of every Lok Sabha or State Assembly election, until the declaration of results.
The petition by Aruna Roy and Nikhil Dey states that “These blanket prohibitory orders directly affect the civil society and general public from freely discussing, participating, organising, or mobilising on issues affecting them ahead of elections.”
Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) of 1973 authorises the Executive Magistrate of any State or territory to issue an order to prohibit the assembly of four or more people in an area in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger.
“The conduct of elections – being the ostensible reason for invoking Section 144 – is neither a valid ground recognised under Section 144, nor an emergent situation to justify imposition of sweeping prohibitory orders. Section 144 orders – of the kind impugned herein – have been passed mechanically, without any material or exigency to justify prohibition on the general public, and amounts to an illegal interference with the right to vote,” states the petition. stated.
The petitioner social activist said that these prohibitions apply to all persons including those who do not belong to a political party or candidate, irrespective of the agenda or purpose, and held at any place within the municipal limits including community grounds and halls.
“Thus, the scope of prohibitions are wide and sweeping and it potentially hinders the civil society from mobilising and creating awareness amongst the voters in a time bound manner, which will in turn help voters exercise their right to vote in its truest form,” added the plea.
The petitioners have contended that these blanket orders under Section 144, issued solely on the ground of the impending general elections, are “manifestly illegal and unconstitutional”.