Freedom of speech the ‘bulwark’ of democracy: Why the Andhra HC struck down order seeking to regulate public assemblies, processions

Freedom of speech the ‘bulwark’ of democracy: Why the Andhra HC struck down order seeking to regulate public assemblies, processions

Subject : Polity

Section: Constitution

Context: The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside a Government Order (GO) issued by the Andhra Pradesh government that sought to regulate public meetings, processions, and assemblies on roads, highways, and streets.

What is the government order?

• The Andhra Pradesh government sought to regulate public meetings or “assembly on roads, roadsides and margins”.
• The state government relied on Sections 30, 30A, and 31 of the Police Act, 1861, to issue directions
• Section 30 relates to the regulation of public assemblies and processions and licensing of the same, Section 30-A allows the magistrate, superintendent, or “any other officer” to stop the procession and order dispersal of the assembly if there is a violation of the licence conditions.
• Section 31 relates to the police’s duty to keep order on “public roads, public streets, thoroughfares, ghats, and landing places”, and “other places of public resort”, along with the prevention of obstruction during assemblies and processions on such roads, streets, or near places of worship.

Why was it issued?

• The government contended that certain fatal accidents that occurred in the past involving loss of life, etc., in a stampede.
• The government argued roads is made for smooth movement of vehicular traffic and for transportation” and therefore if there is a hindrance to the same by holding meetings, the state can definitely impose reasonable restrictions.

What did the Andhra Pradesh HC hold?

• The basis of the challenge in the present case titled ‘Kaka Ramakrishna vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh’
• The court reasoned that the fact that an accident or incident occurred at a particular place cannot be used as an “objective” or “cause” to curtail the right to assemble, to take out processions, etc., on all other roads
• Stating that the “cure suggested in the G.O.” will impose a restriction on the individual and his constitutional freedom, the court said that such a restriction on the right of a citizen or a political party to assemble and hold meetings is unreasonable
• The court held that the “right to assemble, to protest peacefully, and to express one’s opinion freely” is too precious a freedom to be taken away by an “ipse dixit” (unproven assertion) given by the officer of the state
• Stating that freedom of speech is the “bulwark” of democracy and is regarded as the first in the hierarchy of liberties, the court reiterated that it is too precious a freedom to be left to anyone’s unfettered discretion
• The power conferred by the G.O. is “arbitrary, excessive, and also fails on the test of proportionality,” the court deemed the same to be an unreasonable restriction
• the objective of the state to prevent loss of life could have been a reasonable one but the directions given in the GO ultimately conferred “arbitrary power” on the officer in relation to a fundamental right under Part 3 of the Constitution
• The court held that “Any G.O. or executive order which takes away the right of a political party, a citizen, or a group of people to assemble peacefully, to protest peacefully, etc., has to be viewed strictly. This is a right, which is conferred on the citizens by the Constitution
• the court said that such a right can only be subject to a ‘reasonable restriction’ citing SC’s 2018 decision in ‘Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v Union of India and Another’, which laid down guidelines for peaceful assembly.

Article 19 in the Constitution Of India

Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc

All citizens shall have the right

• to freedom of speech and expression;
• to assemble peaceably and without arms;
• to form associations or unions;
• to move freely throughout the territory of India;
• to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and
• to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business

subject to the reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right.