The Supreme Court on Friday refused to interfere with an Andhra Pradesh High Court order staying a government order restricting public meetings on roadside, citing the fact that the petition is scheduled for hearing before the High Court on January 23.
The Court also requested that a division bench led by the Chief Justice of the High Court take up the matter.
Appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh, Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan took objection to the vacation bench of the High Court passing the order on an urgent basis when the matter was mentioned during the vacation.
The bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha, stated that because the matter is scheduled to be heard on Monday, it will not interfere with the order at this time.
“Mr Vaidyanathan submits that the Writ Petition was mentioned before a DB of Andhra Pradesh in winter vacations. He states that the DB should not have assumed jurisdiction since no matter pertaining to policy can be taken during vacation. We are not enquiring into the merits of the grievance at this stage. However, we request a division bench led by the Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court to take up this matter and hear on 23rd Jan 2023”, the bench stated in the order.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal represented CPI State Secretary K Ramakrishna in his High Court challenge to the Govt Order.
The subject matter of the dispute is GO No.1 issued by the State Government to restrict public meetings, after 11 people lost their lives in two stampedes during events addressed by TDP chief N Chandrababu Naidu.
CPI State secretary K Ramakrishna had challenged GO 1 in the High Court stating that it amounted to “blanket ban” on public meetings resulting in the infringement of the right to people’s freedom of expression.
A Division Bench of the High Court, comprising Justices Battu Devanand and V.R.K Krupa Sagar, stayed operation of the G.O. till January 23. Challenging the High Court order, the State filed Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court contending that a regulatory measure was needed so as to avoid loss of lives in stampede-like events.
The State denied that there was a blanket ban and contended that G.O only merely advised the police to refrain from granting permission for public assemblies on public roads and road margins, unless there are exceptional circumstances.
