PIL challenging prohibitory orders imposed exclusively on the basis of election will be examined by the Supreme Court
On Friday, the Supreme Court decided to consider a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that aimed to overturn prohibitory orders granted under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) that were given “solely” because of upcoming elections.
In response to a petition submitted by activists Aruna Roy and Nikhil Dey, a Bench chaired by Justice BR Gavai ordered the relevant authorities to rule on applications for permission to hold “yatras,” or open forums, with the goal of educating the public about elections, within three days.
The matter was then scheduled for a hearing two weeks later. The CrPC’s Section 144 addresses the authority to impose directions in situations of immediate annoyance or suspected danger. The petitioners are requesting an end to the arbitrary practice of state governments and magistrates enforcing “blanket orders” under Section 144 of the CrPC that forbid meetings, assemblies, processions, or “dharnas” prior to each Lok Sabha or Assembly election and until the results are announced.
Something amazing is taking place. On behalf of the petitioners, attorney Prashant Bhushan informed the Bench that, throughout the previous six months, blanket orders under Section 144 (of the CrPC) have been issued for the whole election period, starting with the Election Commission’s notification of the polls and ending at the conclusion of the process.
According to three decisions by the Constitution Bench, such orders cannot be issued without a reasonable suspicion of a violation of the peace, the speaker said.
When Bhushan said that these instructions forbade gatherings of any type, meetings, or protests while elections were underway, the Bench questioned how such directives could possibly be approved.
He cited an order made in Rajasthan on March 16 under Section 144 of the CrPC, which said that it would take effect on that day and be in force across the whole Barmer district until June 6. He said that during the Assembly election of the previous year, the petitioners had requested permission to hold a “yatra” in order to inform voters of their democratic rights, but that request had been denied.
The argument claimed that these directives amount to unlawful meddling with the right to vote as they were issued automatically without any evidence or need to support the ban on the broader public.
