HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
I.A.No.3 of 2022
In
W.P.No.34412 of 2022
INTERIM ORDER:
The facts leading to this Interlocutory Application have been
recorded by this Court, in the order dated 21.10.2022, in the main case.
However, for the purpose of continuity, a brief recap of the facts would be
necessary.
2. This Court by an order dated 09.09.2022, in W.P.No.28377
of 2022, had directed the 2nd respondent-Director General of Police, to
grant permission to the 1st petitioner-trust to conduct a Maha Padayatra
from Amaravati to Arasavilli for expressing their protest against the
proposed establishment of three capitals in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
These directions also stipulated that the Padayatra would be conducted
subject to the following conditions:
i) The 1st petitioner-trust is permitted to take out the procession only with 600 people, who shall be the farmers.
ii) The names and details of these 600 persons are to be furnished to the 2nd respondent, by the evening of 09.09.2022..
iii) The procession shall be carried out peacefully without violence, without usage of abusive language or comments against the authorities, who are at the helm of affairs of the State.
iv) The 1st petitioner shall not allow any other person to participate in the procession on their way to Amaravati to Arasavilli.
2 RRR,J
W.P.No.34412 of 2022
v) However, other persons shall be at liberty to express their solidarity to the farmers in a peaceful manner.
vi) The 2nd respondent is to grant permission to the 1st petitioner to conduct Padayatra, as per the route map and the schedule submitted by the 1st petitioner, imposing reasonable restrictions and conditions.
vii) The 1st petitioner would also be permitted to exhibit Sri Venkateswara Swamy idol in front of the procession and also be allowed to carry on the vehicle, L.E.D. screen and the bio-toilets for the use of the participants of the procession.
viii) The 1st petitioner-trust would be permitted to use hand mike sets during their procession but should not hold any public meetings on their way to Amaravati to Arasavilli.
Subsequently, the 2nd respondent-DGP passed an order, dated 09.09.2022, giving permission to conduct the Padayatra.
3. Thereafter, the petitioners have approached this Court by
way of the present writ petition with the complaint that the official and
unofficial respondents are seeking to scuttle the said Padayatra and that
the official respondents are taking a partisan role and are not protecting
the participants of the padayatra. The petitioners, apart from mentioning
various incidents, had taken the plea that violence had occurred when the
Padayatra was going through Rajahmundry town and further progress of
the Padayatra would not be possible unless directions are given to the
police authorities to ensure appropriate security for the participants of the 3 RRR,J W.P.No.34412 of 2022
Padayatra and to ensure that there is no physical confrontation with any
other person opposing the views of the participants in the Padayatra.
4. In the course of arguments, the learned Advocate General
appearing for the official respondents had submitted that there were
various violations of the directions of this Court, by the organisers of the
Padayatra, and that the police authorities were acting strictly in
compliance with the directions of this Court dated 09.09.2022.
5. After hearing both sides, this Court had passed the following
directions on 21.10.2022.
i) Paragraph 29 of the order of this Court in W.P.No.28377 of 2022 has to be understood to mean that the procession of the Padayatra cannot consist of more than 600 persons whose details have already been furnished to the 2nd respondent.
ii) Any person seeking to express solidarity, as permitted by this Court, would have to express such solidarity only from the side lines and not by joining the procession.
iii) The official respondents shall ensure that the procession shall not have any persons except the persons whose details have been given to the 2nd respondent.
iv) This direction would also take care of the apprehension of the petitioners, that anti social elements would infiltrate into their Padayatra hands and cause law and order problem.
v) The official respondents, while granting any permission to any group expressing a rival opinion, shall ensure that the said procession or meeting of such rival groups shall not be in the 4 RRR,J W.P.No.34412 of 2022
proximity of the procession of the Padayatra, as per the route map approved by the 2nd respondent.
vi) The question of what would be the "proximity" is left to the discretion of the authority on the ground. However, this discretion will not mean that the rival groups will be allowed to physically confront each other.
vii) Both, the petitioners, as well as the official respondents, shall ensure that not more than four vehicles are allowed as part of the Padayatra.
6. The petitioners have now approached this Court by way of
I.A.No.3 of 2022 seeking modification of the orders of this Court passed
on 21.10.2022.
7. It may also be noted that the official respondents had moved
I.A.No.4 of 2022 in W.P.No.28377 of 2022 for permission to cancel the
permission granted by the 2nd respondent-DGP, on the ground of violation
of the conditions stipulated by this Court as well as the conditions
stipulated by the 2nd respondent-DGP in his order dated 09.09.2022. A
separate order is being passed in the said application.
8. Heard Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel and
Sri Unnam Muralidhar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners;
learned Advocate General appearing for official respondents 1 to 17; Sri
K.G. Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent
No.18; Sri R.N. Hemendranath Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for respondent No.19; Sri C. Raghu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for 5 RRR,J W.P.No.34412 of 2022
respondent No.20, and Sri V.R.N. Prasanth, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.24.
9. As the unofficial respondents have not yet been served with
any notice, it would not be appropriate for this Court to pass final orders
in the matter. In the circumstances, an interim order is being passed in
the present I.A. only.
10. The respective contentions, raised by the learned counsel for
the petitioners, learned Advocate General, Learned Senior Counsels and
learned counsel appearing for various parties, are as follows:
11. The contentions of Sri Unnam Muralidhar Rao are :-
a) Article 19 of the Constitution of India permits the petitioners to
conduct a Padayatra without having to obtain any permission from
any authority. However, since the official respondents were
obstructing any activity of the protesting farmers of Amaravati, an
application was given to conduct the Padayatra under Section 30 of
the Police Act, 1861.
b) As the said application was not considered initially and was rejected
subsequently, the petitioners had approached this Court for grant
of appropriate permission and the same was given by this Court.
c) The Maha Padayatra was conducted strictly in accordance with the
conditions set out in the orders of this Court and the permission
granted by the 2nd respondent-DGP.
6 RRR,J
W.P.No.34412 of 2022
d) The condition that no person, other than 600 persons mentioned in
the order of this Court would be allowed to participate in the
procession was complied with by the petitioners. The persons, who
are said to have joined the procession, by marching along with the
Padayatris were the persons who had come on their own volition
and that the petitioners have never invited anybody to participate in
the Padayatra.
e) As the police authorities were not ensuring appropriate security for
the participants of the Padayatra, the petitioners had approached
this Court only for the purpose of obtaining necessary protection for
the participants of the Padayatra.
f) This Court by issuing directions 1, 2, 3 and 7 in the order dated
21.10.2022 had effectively given a handle to the police to scuttle
the Padayatra.
g) One of the conditions set out in the permission granted by the 2 nd
respondent-DGP was the requirement that the participants in the
Padayatra do not undertake any confrontation against any persons
opposing their view point. This would also mean that there is a duty
cast on the police authorities to ensure that persons opposing the
view point of the petitioners do not confront the petitioners or the
participants in the Padayatra.
h) The conditions stipulated by this Court in the order dated
09.09.2022 in W.P.No.28377 of 2022 were on account of the rival 7 RRR,J W.P.No.34412 of 2022
submissions made before the Court in the course of arguments and
as such the said directions/conditions set out in the order dated
09.09.2022 have to be understood and interpreted in terms of the
contentions raised before this Court.
i) The Court while dictating paragraph 29 of the order dated
09.09.2022 had stipulated that only 600 persons would participate
in the Padayatra. At that stage, a submission had been made to the
Court that there could be expressions of solidarity by various other
persons and the aforesaid stipulation should not be a hurdle for
expression of such solidarity. On account of this submission, this
Court had added the rider that it would be open for other persons
to express their solidarity with the participants of the Padayatra.
j) A procession can be prohibited only if there is a law to that effect
and in the absence of such a law, only reasonable restrictions set
out under Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India would be
permissible. As none of the restrictions are in accordance with the
provisions of Article 19(6), the same would not be binding.
k) The Padayatra is going through rural areas of the State and as
such, a leeway has to be given for the traditional forms of welcome
given by the villagers. Some of the traditional forms of welcome are
to wash feet of the persons coming into the village, pouring water
on the path being taken by such persons, giving harathi etc. Such 8 RRR,J W.P.No.34412 of 2022
forms of welcome are being shown as violations of the directions of
this Court by the police authorities.
l) The last part of the paragraph 29 of the order of this Court dated
09.09.2022 permits outsiders to express their solidarity. The
meaning of solidarity includes the right to march along with the
participants of the Padayatra. This can be seen from the various
news articles reporting that persons across the world are shown to
be marching in solidarity with the causes mentioned in these
reports. As such marching is one of the methods of expressing
solidarity and it would not be appropriate for this Court to direct
that solidarity should be expressed from the side lines.
m) The police authorities under the guise of implementing the
directions of this Court dated 21.10.2022, are insisting upon the
participants of the padayatra to show I.D Cards, failing which, the
said persons are being removed from the Padayatra.
n) The police authorities, who should have given I.D. Cards to all 600
participants, had distributed only 150 I.D. Cards to some of the
participants and due to the non-receipt of I.D. Cards, the remaining
450 persons are unable to show their I.D. Cards and are not being
allowed to participate in the Padayatra.
o) The police, having violated the orders of this Court by issuing only
150 I.D. Cards, are now trying to take advantage of their own lapse
and are trying to scuttle the Padayatra.
9 RRR,J
W.P.No.34412 of 2022
p) The organisers of the Padayatra have set up their own rope party,
which ensures that the participants in the Padayatra walk only
along the side of the road and without obstructing the carriage
way. However, it is now being complained that the Padayatra is
obstructing the carriage way.
q) The intention of the Padayatra is to educate the people about the
injustice being caused to the farmers of Amaravati and to visit all
religious shrines along the way to pray for divine intervention.
r) As various hurdles and difficulties are being raised by the official
respondents, it would be necessary for this Court to modify the
order dated 21.10.2022 in the following manner.
i) Delete directions 1, 2, 3 & 7.
ii) Permit cycling of 600 persons who were permitted to
participate in the Padayatra, i.e., as and when any one of the identified 600 members are unable to participate on account of any difficulty, another person should be permitted to take place of the identified participant so that the overall number 600 does not exceed.
iii) The organisers have identified about 2000 persons who would replace the participants, who are unable to continue with the Padayatra. These 2000 persons are farmers of Amaravati only.
iv) This Court should permit anybody to express solidarity by either marching in front of the Padayatra or behind the Padayatra with a clear space between the two sets of people.
10 RRR,J
W.P.No.34412 of 2022
v) The police should be directed to indicate an area where
persons expressing their solidarity can park their vehicles and ensure that the said persons park the vehicles in the earmarked area.
12. The contentions of Sri Posani Venkateswarlu are :-
a) Solidarity mentioned in the order dated 09.09.2022 should be
given a wider meaning.
b) A large number of participants are women and every measure
should be undertaken to honour such women, who are marching
by chanting the slogan "save Amaravati save Andhra Pradesh".
c) The women who are participating in the procession would be
requiring assistance at various points of time either on account
of ill-health or need to visit rest rooms, etc. Such requirements
are being taken care by the persons expressing solidarity with
the participants of the Padayatra and the police are stopping
such persons from giving any assistance to the women
participants on the ground that the orders of this Court dated
21.10.2022 do not permit any person to mingle with the
participants of the Padayatra.
d) People in the ruling dispensation are either threatening or
intimidating the supporters of the Padayatra and necessary
directions have to be given to the police to stop such
intimidation.
11 RRR,J
W.P.No.34412 of 2022
e) There is a clear distinction between the persons participating in
the Padayatra and the persons expressing solidarity by marching
either before the Padayatra or after the Padayatra. It must be
understood that the people expressing solidarity are only
gathering or expressing their solidarity for a few hours during
the period when the Padayatra is passing through their area and
as such the expression of solidarity in this manner should not be
scuttled.
f) The route map of the Padayatra approved by the 2nd
respondent-DGP is not on the National Highway and goes
through rural roads. As such, no inconvenience is caused to any
member of the public. In the circumstances, the contention of
the police authorities that they are obstructing traffic and the
carriage way, is clearly incorrect.
13. Contentions of the learned Advocate General are:-
i) The petitioners had initially given a representation to the 2 nd
respondent-DGP for permission to conduct the Padayatra on the
ground that the participants of the Padayatra proposed to visit
various religious shrines and temples to pray for a change in the
mind of the persons at the helm of affairs. Paragraphs 12 and
18 to 20 of W.P.No.28377 of 2022 reflect the same submissions.
12 RRR,J
W.P.No.34412 of 2022
ii) Paragraphs 28 and 29 of the order of this Court dated
09.09.2022 would have to be understood in the light of these
submissions.
iii) Further, the Court passed the order after taking into account the
past conduct of the petitioners in the Padayatra conducted
earlier from Amaravati to Tirupati and taking into account the
submissions of the learned Government pleader that huge
number of persons had participated in the earlier Padayatra
despite restrictions being placed on the number of persons.
iv) The organisers of the Padayatra have violated the directions of
this Court dated 09.09.2022. Though the number of participants
in the Padayatra has been restricted to 600 people, persons,
other than farmers belonging to Amaravati region, have
participated in the Padayatra and the Padayatra has been
conducted with the participants indulging in abusive language
which is provocative and essentially challenging the persons in
power, to react to the statements being made in the course of
Padayatra.
v) Paragraphs 6 to 9 of the application contain intemperate
pleadings. The Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in Badshah
Restaurant, Secunderabad vs. Commissioner of Police, 13 RRR,J W.P.No.34412 of 2022
Hyderabad1, at paragraph No.34, had held that irresponsible
pleadings in a given case itself may disentitle the party for any
relief and the Court would be well within its limits to refuse relief
to such persons, who do not have respect to the judicial
process.
vi) A reading of paragraphs 6 to 9 would show that the petitioners
are reluctant to comply with the directions of the order of this
Court dated 09.09.2022 and in such a situation, the petitioners
would not be entitled to any relief. The judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in The State of Maharashtra vs. Digambar2
(paragraphs 14, 19 and 23) is relied upon.
vii) The learned Advocate General also cited the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme court in Amit Sahni (Shaheen Bagh, In re)
v. Commissioner of Police and Ors.,3 (paragraphs 16 to 18).
He contends that while Article 19 (1) (a) & (b) grant the right to
assemble peacefully and the right of free speech, the same are
subject to reasonable restrictions and the said right would not
give a unfettered right to the petitioners to undertake Padayatra
in violation of the conditions stipulated in the orders of this
Court as well as the permission granted by the 2nd respondent-
DGP.
1 (1998) 3 ALD 346 : (1998) 3 ALT 613 2 (1995) 4 SCC 683 3 (2020) 10 SCC 439 14 RRR,J W.P.No.34412 of 2022 viii) The learned Advocate General would submit that ID cards for
all the 600 participants were prepared and kept on a counter at
the starting place of the padayatra and only about 150 persons
had collected their ID cards. The remaining participants who
have not bothered to take their ID cards cannot turn around and
blame the Respondent authorities. He would further submit that
the police officials had not restricted the proof of identity to only
the ID cards given by the respondents and were willing to
accept any form of official identification. It was again the
participants in the padayatra who refused to show any form of
identification and got into arguments with the police officials.
ix) In view of the various violations of the directions of this Court
and in view of the highly disputed facts, the only appropriate
course would be to permit the 2nd respondent to cancel the
earlier permission given on 09.09.2022.
14. Contentions of Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.18 are :-
i) The application is in the nature of an application for review under
Order XLVII Rule 1 of C.P.C. The present application filed under
151 of C.P.C., is not maintainable. Further, none of the conditions
set out in Order XLVII Rule 1 C.P.C., have been made out either in
the pleadings or in the submissions made on behalf of the
petitioners and as such the application itself is not maintainable.
15 RRR,J
W.P.No.34412 of 2022
ii) The direction Nos.1, 2, 3 & 7 are directions given in accordance
with the directions given in the order dated 09.09.2022. Any
modification of these directions or deletion of these directions
would amount to modification of the order dated 09.09.2022. The
said order, having become final, cannot be modified in these
proceedings and as such this application has to be dismissed.
iii) Section 30 and Section 30-A of the Police Act are enactments,
which answer the description of law under Article 13 of the
Constitution of India and the conditions stipulated in the
permission granted by the 2nd respondent are reasonable
restrictions, under Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India, they
do not require any interference.
15. The contentions of Sri R.N. Hemendranath Reddy,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.19 are:-
i) The 19th respondent has been made a party without any
allegations being made against the said respondent.
ii) I.A.No.3 of 2022 has not been served on the 19th respondent.
iii) All the arguments raised in the present application are outside the
scope of the writ petition itself and as such cannot be considered.
iv) The affidavit in I.A.No.3 of 2022 has been signed by a person who
described himself as an academician, and therefore, he is not a
farmer of Amaravati area and as such has no locus standi to be a 16 RRR,J W.P.No.34412 of 2022
petitioner in the writ petition or to file the affidavit in support of
I.A.No.3 of 2022.
v) The 1st petitioner is described as a trust represented by its
secretary. A trust has no juristic personality and cannot approach
this Court by way of a writ petition unless it is represented by a
trustee. In the present case, it is represented by a secretary and as
such the writ petition is not maintainable by the 1st petitioner and
consequently this application would have to be dismissed.
vi) The petitioner has not challenged the permission granted by the
2nd respondent-DGP dated 09.09.2022. In the absence of such a
challenge, the petitioners cannot seek modification of the
conditions stipulated in the said order.
vii) The main writ petition may be considered only after a counter is
filed by the 19th respondent and time should be granted for such
purpose.
viii) The petitioners while claiming a right to speak up on the basis of
Article 19(1)(a) & (b), cannot insist that the respondents are not
entitled to put up posters or speak up against the view point of the
petitioners.
16. The contentions of Sri C. Raghu, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for respondent No.20, are:-
i) The relief No.(h) in the main writ petition is to declare that the
unofficial respondents, including respondent No.20, have violated 17 RRR,J W.P.No.34412 of 2022
their oath of affirmation. There is no allegation in relation to
respondent No.20 about the alleged violation of oath. In the
absence of specific allegations such a relief cannot be sought.
ii) The allegations, if any, are in paragraph 11 to paragraph 22 of the
writ affidavit. These paragraphs do not set out any allegations
against the respondents and much less respondent No.20.
iii) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Singh vs.
State of Haryana4 had taken the view that there is a distinction
between a pleading in the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ
petition. Pleadings in Civil proceedings only require the facts to be
stated and evidence is not required to be pleaded while in a writ
petition not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such
facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it. As there is neither
material nor pleadings in this regard, the writ petition would have
to be dismissed against respondent No.20.
17. Sri V.R.N. Prasanth, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.24, would point out to paragraph-10 of the affidavit filed in
support of I.A.No.3 of 2022 to contend that the said paragraph is
essentially stating that the petitioners have an unfettered right of speech
and no restriction can be placed on such freedom of speech. He submits
4 AIR 1998 SC 2181 18 RRR,J W.P.No.34412 of 2022
that Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in the case of Schenck vs. United
States5 held as follows:
"We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants in saying all that was said in the circular would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. Alkens v. Wilsconsin, MANU/USSC/0222/1904 : 195 U.S. 194, 205, 206, 25 Sup. Ct. 3, 49L. Ed. 154. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. Gompers v. Buck's Stove and Range Co., MANU/USSC/0140/1911 : 221 U.S. 418, 439, 31 Sup. Ct. 492, 55 L. ed. 797, 34 L. R. A. (N.S.) 874. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a cler and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree."
Consideration of the Court
18. The petitioners had approached this Court by way of
W.P.No.28377 of 2022 for obtaining permission to conduct a Padayatra to
espouse their cause. This Court by an order dated 09.09.2022 had
directed the 2nd respondent-DGP to grant necessary permission for
5 249 U.S. 47(1919) 19 RRR,J W.P.No.34412 of 2022
conduct of Padayatra from Amaravati to Arasavilli. In pursuance of this
direction, the DGP had granted permission by an order dated 09.09.2022.
19. Neither the order of this Court dated 09.09.2022 in
W.P.No.28377 of 2022 nor the permission granted by the 2nd respondent-
DGP dated 09.09.2022 have been challenged. In the circumstances, the
order of this Court dated 09.09.2022 has become final and binding on the
petitioners as well as the official respondents. Similarly, in the absence of
any challenge to the order of the 2nd respondent-DGP dated 09.09.2022,
this Court would not be looking at any modification of the said order.
20. The petitioners have approached this Court by way of the
present writ petition with the complaint that the Padayatra is not able to
progress on account of the physical confrontation between the
participants of the Padayatra and the persons who are in opposition to the
view point of the petitioners. In the course of submissions, the official
respondents took the stand that the petitioners while insisting upon the
order of this Court being implemented, cannot violate the directions and
conditions stipulated by this Court and point out about 72 violations said
to have been committed by the organisers/participants of the Padayatra.
The primary objection raised by the official respondents was that
thousands of people are being allowed to join the Padayatra despite the
stipulation of this Court that only 600 identified farmers from Amaravati
area can participate in the Padayatra.
20 RRR,J
W.P.No.34412 of 2022
21. In those circumstances, this Court by an order dated
21.10.2022, had passed the directions set out above.
22. The petitioners have now approached this Court again by
way of the present application contending that the directions of this Court
dated 09.09.2022 require certain modifications. The petitioners have also
raised the contention that this Court by passing the above directions, on
21.10.2022, had effectively modified the earlier orders dated 09.09.2022
and these modifications have resulted in giving a handle to the police
authorities to break up the Padayatra.
23. Various counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents
have raised issues relating to the maintainability of the writ petition itself
and on the maintainability of the interlocutory application, which is the
subject matter of this order. This Court does not propose to go into those
issues at this stage and the same would be considered at the time of final
hearing of the writ petition after notices are sent to the unofficial
respondents and pleadings are completed.
24. The petitioners contend that Article 19 (1) (a) (b) and (c)
grant an unfettered right to the petitioners to conduct a Padayatra and the
only restrictions that can be imposed on the petitioners would be
reasonable restrictions set out in Article 19 (6) of the Constitution of India.
Any restrictions which are not enumerated in Article 19(6) cannot be
placed on the petitioners and the present order of this Court dated
21.10.2022 has effectively placed restrictions, which are not permissible 21 RRR,J W.P.No.34412 of 2022
under Article 19(1)(a) and (b), and would amount to modification of the
earlier orders of this Court dated 09.09.2022 and the same is not
warranted.
25. Before adverting to these contentions, it is also necessary to
record that the learned counsel for the respondents had pointed out to the
pleadings in paragraphs 6 to 9 in the affidavit filed in support of this
application and would submit that these pleadings are intemperate and
offensive. In reply, Sri Unnam Muralidhar Rao, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners has tendered his apology and requested that the said
pleadings be expunged from the record. The said pleadings are hereby
expunged from the record.
26. The right of citizens to conduct processions has been
considered by the Apex Court in various judgments. It would suffice to
mention the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Himat Lal K.
Shah vs. Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad and Anr.,6 and Amit
Sahni (Shaheen Bagh, In re) vs. Commissioner of Police and Ors.
(supra). In the case of Himat Lal K. Shah vs. Commissioner of
Police Ahmedabad and Anr., a constitution Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court went into the question of the power of the State to
regulate assemblies and processions, in the light of the provisions of
Sections 33 (1)(g) (o) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. Though the
6 (1973) 1 SCC 227 22 RRR,J W.P.No.34412 of 2022
language of this provision is not in pari materia with the language of the
Indian Police Act, 1861 the purport of both the sections are on similar
lines. The majority judgment was given by three learned judges with the
other two learned judges delivering separate concurrent judgments.
27. The majority judgment of the constitution bench after
reviewing the law prior to the constitution and the law after the
constitution had come into force, had held that in view of the judgement
of the hon'ble Supreme Court, in Babulal parate vs. State of
Maharashtra7, the right to conduct processions is part of the right to
assemble peacefully contained in Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of
India."
28. Having held so, the majority judgment also made it clear
that - "there is nothing wrong in requiring previous permission to be
obtained before holding a public meeting on a public street, for the right,
which flows from Article 19 (1) (b) is not a right to hold a meeting at any
place and time. It is a right which can be regulated in the interest of all so
that all can enjoy the right."
29. The Constitution Bench also went on to strike down Rule 7
authorising the Commissioner of Police/authorised officer to grant or reject
permission for conduct of a meeting without any guidelines.
7
AIR 1961 SC 884
23 RRR,J
W.P.No.34412 of 2022
30. In view of the above, the right conferred under Article
19(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution of India is subject to the restrictions
contained in Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India apart from
authorising the appropriate authority to impose reasonable restrictions in
the interest of public order. The following passages in the said judgment
make it clear:
32. This takes us to Points (2) and (3) mentioned above. It is not surprising that the Constitution makers conferred a fundamental right on all citizens "to assemble peaceably and without arms". While prior to the coming into force of the Constitution the right to assemble could have been abridged or taken away by law, now that cannot be done except by imposing reasonable restrictions within Article 19(3). But it is urged that the right to assemble does not mean that that right can be exercised at any and every place. This Court held in Railway Board v. Narinjan Singh [(1969) 1 SCC 502 : (1969) 3 SCR 548, 554] that there is no fundamental right for anyone to hold meetings in Government premises. It was observed:
"The fact that the citizens of this country have freedom of speech, freedom to assemble peaceably and freedom to form associations or unions does not mean that they can exercise those freedoms in whatever place they please."
33. This is true but nevertheless the State cannot by law abridge or take away the right of assembly by prohibiting assembly on every public street or public place. The State can only make regulations in aid of the right of assembly of each citizen and can only impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order.
24 RRR,J
W.P.No.34412 of 2022
34. This Court in Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1961 SC 884 : (1961) 3 SCR 423, 438 : (1961) 1 SCJ 554: (1961) 2 Cr LJ 10] rightly observed:
"The right of citizens to take out processions or to hold public meetings flows from the right in Article 19(1)(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms and the right to move anywhere in the territory of India."
31. The decision of this Court dated 09.089.2022 and the
consequential permission granted by the 2nd respondent-DGP, are in
accord with the above principle of law enunciated by the Constitution
Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. This Court, keeping in mind
the fact that the Padayatra is being conducted under the directions of this
Court, had placed conditions on the manner in which the Padayatra is to
be conducted to ensure that there is no misuse of the permission given by
this Court. The conditions stipulated in the order of this court, dated
09.09.2022, are reasonable restrictions placed for the conduct of a
peaceful padayatra. The conditions placed by the 2nd respondent DGP are
in line with the directions of this court.
32. The contention of the petitioners is that the directions issued
by this Court on 21.10.2022 are effectively modifying the earlier orders of
this Court dated 09.09.2022. A perusal of the directions given by this
Court on 21.10.2022 would show that the directions 1, 2, 3 & 7 are
directions to the official respondents and to the petitioners to comply with
the earlier directions of this Court dated 09.09.2022. The contention that 25 RRR,J W.P.No.34412 of 2022
direction No.2 restricts the right of a person to express his solidarity is not
correct. This court, in paragraph 28 and 29 of the order of 09.09.2022 had
restricted the number of persons who can participate in the padayatra to
600 farmers of Amaravati. The subsequent permission for other persons to
express solidarity does not in any manner detract from the initial
stipulation to restrict the number to 600. The question of whether a
person can express solidarity by marching along with the padayatris, is
redundant, in the light of the directions of this court, in it's order dated
09.09.2022. Direction No. 2 was for a person to express solidarity in the
sidelines and not by joining the procession. Clearly there is no restriction
on any person, regarding the manner in which solidarity can be expressed.
The only restriction placed by this Court was that such an expression of
solidarity cannot be expressed by joining the padayatra.
33. In the event of any ambiguity in this respect, it is made clear
that any person can express solidarity in any manner he / she chooses,
provided the said expression of solidarity does not contravene any of the
directions given in the order dated 09.09.2022 including the stipulation
that the padayatra will be conducted only by the 600 identified farmers
mentioned in the order of 09.09.2022.
34. As far as directions 4, 5 and 6 are concerned, direction No.4
makes it clear that the direction Nos. 2 and 3 would also take care of the
apprehension of the petitioners that anti social elements would infiltrate
into their Padayatra.
26 RRR,J
W.P.No.34412 of 2022
35. Directions 5 and 6 are directions given for the purpose of
ensuring adequate security for the petitioners and is, in a manner, an aid
for implementing the directions of this Court dated 09.09.2022 for conduct
of a peaceful Padayatra.
36. The contentions raised by the petitioners that the directions
given by this Court in the order dated 09.09.2022 are not practicable and
require modification for the purpose of ensuring a smooth functioning of
the Padayatra, is an issue which cannot be gone into by this Court. The
order of this Court dated 09.09.2022 was passed in W.P.No.28377 of 2022
which has been disposed of. This order has also become final as the
petitioners have not filed any appeal against the said order. In such
circumstances, this Court cannot modify the said judgment by passing an
order in another writ petition. Further, this writ petition has been filed for
seeking protection to continue the padayatra on the basis of the orders of
this court dated 09.09.2022. The prayer to relax the conditions in the
earlier order is beyond the scope of this Writ petition.
37. The modifications sought by the petitioners in the present
application requiring additional directions to be given to the police, in
contradiction to the orders of this Court dated 09.09.2022, is equally not
permissible. Any orders passed, as required by the petitioners, would
result in a modification of the earlier order dated 09.09.2022 which is not
permissible as held above.
27 RRR,J
W.P.No.34412 of 2022
38. A perusal of the order of this court, dated 09.09.2022, would
show that the 600 persons who can participate in the padayatra were to
be the 600 farmers of Amaravati, whose details have been furnished to
the 2nd respondent DGP on 09.09.2022 itself. The judgement directed that
the persons whose details are given to the 2nd respondent DGP by the
evening of 9th September, alone would be permitted to participate in the
Padayatra. There is no provision in the said judgement to substitute these
persons with any other person. Any direction to permit such changes
would amount to a modification of the order which is not permissible.
Similarly, the request to permit the persons to participate in the
padayatra, by cycling, would also amount to a modification of the
directions of this court and would not be permissible. It is further clarified
that the order of this court dated 09.09.2022 had not specified anywhere
that only the identification cards issued by the respondents is the sole
method of demonstrating their identities. It is always open to the
participants to demonstrate their identity in any other manner by
producing official identification documents. In any event, the 2nd
respondent shall offer the identity cards, which have not been taken
earlier, again to the organisers/participants of the padayatra, by setting up
a counter at the place where the participants of the padayatra are
presently camping.
39. In these circumstances, this Court does not find any reason
to modify the directions of this Court dated 21.10.2022 and this 28 RRR,J W.P.No.34412 of 2022
application, subject to the observations and directions given above, is
dismissed.
_________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
1st November, 2022 Js.
29 RRR,J
W.P.No.34412 of 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
I.A.No.3 of 2022
in
W.P.No.34412 of 2022
1st November, 2022
Js.
