Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties v. The Collector & District - WRIT PETITION NO. 11886 OF 2000 [2003] INAPHC 193 (19 June 2003)

The Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties Committee, represented by its District Committee Secretary, Guntur, who is also an advocate, filed this Writ Petition, to declare the Circular Orders dated 14-02-2000, issued by the Collector & District Magistrate, Guntur District, in directing all the in- charges of the grounds, meeting halls, kalyana Mandapams and other public places or private place owners, which are convenient to conduct meetings, to obtain advise from the local Police Inspectors/ Sub Divisional Police Officers concerned, and to act in such a way that there should not be any problem in maintaining the law and order in the District and sparing premises to such organisations such as the petitioner organisation, without getting permission from the Police will be viewed seriously, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 19(1) (a), (b), (c) of the Constitution of India.

It is stated in the said circular that the Superintendent of Police, Guntur, has reported that the organisations like the Petitioner i.e., Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties Committee (APCLC), All India People Resistance Forum (AIPRF), Kerosene Hawkers Association, Viplava Rachaithala Sangam (VIRASAM), A.P.Chaitanya Mahila Samakya, Kula Nirmulana Porata Samithi, are holding dharnas, processions and public meetings in various place in Guntur District. These organisations are having links with CPI-ML (PWG) directly and indirectly. They are working as Frontal Organisations and propagating the extremist-ideology and giving speeches in public meetings about extremist and always criticizing the polices of the Government and diverting the youth from main stream to extremism. They are also supporting the activities of CPI-ML(PWG) directly or indirectly and criticizing the polices of Government. All India People Resistance Forum office bearers are forcibly collecting money from the traders, Contractors, Rich people, Doctors and Management of private colleges. Therefore, the Superintendent of Police, Guntur is requested to issue necessary instructions to the authorities, who are in-charge of the grounds, meeting halls, etc., which are convenient to hold meetings to advise them to consult the local Police Inspectors or Sub Divisional Police Officers concerned, before giving permitssion to the above mentioned organisations to conduct meetings etc., to avoid disturbances to render in the District. There may not be any lacunae for the Superintendent of Police requesting the Collector and District Magistrate to advise the owners of such places to give information to the concerned Police before letting the premises. It appears that the Superintendent of Police, rightly requested the Collector to give instructions advising the owners of such places to consult the local Police, but the Collector instead of advising them, issued the said circular directing them to obtain advise from the local Police and if no permission is obtained from the Police before sparing the premises to such organisations, the matter will be viewed seriously.

It is stated that said circular is illegal and un-constitutional and in violation of Article 19(1) (a), (b), (c) of the Constitution of India. As per Article 19 of the Constitution of India, protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech are given. All citizens shall have the right (1) to freedom of speech and expression, (2) to assemble peacefully and without arms, and (3) to form associations or unions. As per Article 19(2), (3) and (4), it is open for the State to make any law imposing reasonable restriction in exercise of the right conferred under Article 19(1) (a), (b), (c). of the Constitution of India, in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation and incitement to an offence. A reasonable restriction can be imposed by way of legislation in the interest of the public order or morality.

It is the case of the Petitioner that without there being any law, the Collector and District Magistrate or the Superintendent of Police cannot curtail the right of freedom of speech and expression of the Petitioner and the said circular orders also cannot curtail the right to assemble peacefully and without arms. It is further stated that the APCLC is formed with an object to protect the Democratic and Human Rights of the Citizens of the Andhra Pradesh. It intervening wherever State violence prevails and high lights the anti-people undemocratic policies taken up by the Government of Andhra Pradesh within the framework of the Constitution.

The learned Government Pleader for Home, appearing for the State submits that APCLC is mainly formed to attack Police functions and actions throughout the State. When the Government of Andhra Pradesh banned certain Organisations and associations, like CPI-ML (PWG), etc., in order to maintain the contact of the public. The banned organisations started APCLC. On account of giving such an impressive title for the Organisation, certain sympathizers of CPI- ML(PWG) enrolled themselves as members and started criticizing the police actions. Since the APCLC is not banned Organisation the members are freely moving in the Society and gathering information along with other Organisations about the locations of the Police Stations, strength of each Police Station and movement of the various Police Officers and passing such information to banned Organisations. These members are also collecting money from the public, especially rich businessmen, doctors, rich farmers and industrialists. They are threatening the people who do not pay money to them. The Petitioner never expressed their sympathy of slain police personnel, when the banned Organisations attacked and killed the Police personnel. When the CPI-ML(PWG) and other banned Organisations are killing various rich people, politicians under the guise of Police informants, no sympathy was expressed by the so-called APCLC. Even when the banned Organisations blasted Mandal Revenue Offices, Railway Stations, Telephone Exchanges and other Governmental properties, the APCLC never protested such destructions. The public offices and public transport system and Railway are meant for public utilisation. When such facilities are destroyed the sufferers are public at large. Therefore, it is the duty of the Police to maintain law and order and the said circular is only a measure in maintaining the public law and order and it cannot be said that the said circular affects the fundamental rights of the Petitioner guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a), (b), (c) of the Constitution of India. Several instances of the involvement of the members of APCLC in several criminal cases have been furnished and some of them are that one Chilaka Chandra Sekhar, Member of APCLC, who is an Advocate and one member of AIPRF namely Uppu Krishna, Satenapalli are figured as accused in Crime No.14/2000 under Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3 and 5 ES Act and 25 and 27 of the Arms Act r) APPS Act of Bellamkonda Police Station. One Bandi Koteswara Rao s/o Siddaiah, 26 years of Karempudi Village who is a member of APCLC, passed information about the movements of Sri N.Koteswara Rao, Sub Inspector of Police and Police Constable 1986 Bala Sowraiah of Karempudi Police Station to CPI-ML(PWG) action team of Guntur District and facilitated in killing of the Sub Inspector and the Police Constable on 03-07-2000, and a case in Crime No.52 of 2000 under Sections 147, 148, 302, 396, 120(b), 123 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 25 of the Arms Act and 8(I) of the APPS Act of Karempudi Police station, was also registered and he is absconding. Several other instances have been furnished in the counter stating that the members of the Petitioner Association directly or indirectly are having connections with the banned Organisations and under the guise of conducting meetings they are propagating extremism to de-throw the value of the Government and disturbing the law and order in the State. All these may be grounds to ban the activities of Petitioner-organisation.

The Apex Court in ROMESH THAPPAR .v. STATE OF MADRAS 1 held that the State can impose restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression only in cases where danger to public security is involved, an enactment, which is capable of being applied to cases where no such danger could arise, cannot be held to be constitutional and valid to any extent. Their Lordships were of the opinion that unless a law restricting freedom of speech and expression is directed solely against the undermining of the security of the State or the overthrow of it, such law cannot fall within the reservation under Clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India, although the restrictions which it seeks to impose may have been conceived generally in the interests of public order. It follows that Section 9 (1) (a) which authorises imposition of restrictions for the wider purpose of securing public safety or to the maintenance of public order falls outside the scope of authorised restrictions under Clause (2) and is therefore void and unconstitutional. In a recent judgment the Apex Court in PEOPLES UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES (PUCL) .v. UNION OF INDIA 2 analyzed the entire case law relating to freedom of speech and expression right from Romesh Thappar case stated (1) supra, wherein it is held that freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of propagation of ideas which is ensured by freedom of circulation. In SAKALA PAPERS (P) LTD. & ANOTHER .v. UNION OF INDIA 3 the Apex Court held that freedom of speech and expression carries with it the right to publish and circulate one's ideas, opinions and views. In BENNETT COLEMAN AND CO. & OTHERS .v. UNION OF INDIA 4 it was held that freedom of Press means right of citizens to speak, publish and express their views as well as right of people to read. In the INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS (BOMBAY) (P) LTD. & OTHERS .v. UNION OF INDIA 5 the Apex Court held that freedom of expression, as learned writers have observed, has four broad social purposes to serve (i) it helps an individual to attain self-fulfillment, (ii) it assists in the discovery of truth, (iii) it strengthens the capacity of an individual in participating in decision making and (iv) it provides a mechanism by which it would be possible to establish a reasonable balance between stability and social change. In ODYSSEY COMMUNICATION PVT.LITD. .v. LOKVIDAYAN SANGHATANA & OTHERS 6 it was held that freedom of speech and expression includes right of citizens to exhibit film on Doordarshan. In S.RANGARAJAN . V. P.JAGJIVAN RAM & OTHERS 7 it was held that freedom of speech and expression means the right to express one's opinion by words of mouth, writing, printing picture or any other manner. It would thus include the freedom of communication and the right to propagate or publish opinions. In L.I.C. .v. MANNUBHAI D.SHAH 8 it was held that freedom of speech and expression is a natural right, which a human being acquires by birth. It is, therefore, a basic human right (Article 19 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights relied on). Every citizen, therefore, has a right to air his or her views through the printing and/or electronic media or through any communication method. In SECRETARY MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & OTHERS .v.. CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BENGAL & OTHERS 9 it was held that the right to freedom of speech and expression includes the right to receive and impart information. For ensuring the free speech right of the citizens of this country, it is necessary that the citizens have the benefit of plurality of views and a range of opinions on all public issues. A successful democracy posits an 'aware' citizenry. Diversity of opinions, views, ideas and ideologies is essential to enable the citizens to arrive at informed judgment on all issues touching them. In S.P.GUPTA .v. UNION OF INDIA &ANOTHER 10 it was held that right to know is implicit in right of free speech and expression. Disclosure of information regarding functioning of the Government must be the rule. In STATE OF U.P. .v. RAJ NARAIN & OTHERS 11 it was held that freedom of speech and expression includes the right to know every public act, everything that is done in a public way, by their public functionaries. In DINESH TRIVEDI, M.P. & OTHERS .v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS 12 it was held freedom of speech and expression includes right of the citizens to know about the affairs of the Government.

All the aforesaid judgments make it clear that protection of rights regarding freedom of speech and expression, assemble peacefully without arms and to form associations or unions, can be restricted by a legislation in a qualified manner, but without there being any legislation under Article 19(2), (3) and (4), the protection given to a citizen with regard to freedom of speech and expression, to assemble peacefully without arms and to form associations or unions, cannot be restricted by such circular orders of the Collector and District Magistrate. It is always open for the respondents to take appropriate action against the Petitioner and its members as and when they violate any of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, or for act of illegality or for violation of any law. But, as long as the Petitioner Organisation is not banned it cannot be open for the respondents to curtail their rights in giving speeches in the public meetings. If by the public meetings held by the Petitioner Organisation, they were found propagating the extremist-ideology and illegally criticising the polices of the Government and diverting the youth from main stream to extremism, it is open to the Police to take action against the concerned, as has been taken by them as stated in the counter giving several instances.

Hence, I am of the opinion that the said circular order issued by the 1st Respondent, in directing all the in- charges of the grounds, meeting halls, kalyana Mandapams and other public places or private place owners, which are convenient to conduct meetings, to obtain advise from the local Police Inspectors/ Sub Divisional Police Officers concerned, before sparing such grounds for the purpose of conducting public meetings by the Petitioner Organisation, is illegal and un-constitutional. Accordingly, the said circular order dated 14-02-2000 is declared as illegal and violative of Article 19(1) (a), (b), (c) of the Constitution of India.

In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. But, in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.

?1 [1950] INSC 16; AIR 1950 SC 124

2 AIR 2003 SCW 2353

3 [1961] INSC 281; AIR 1962 SC 305

4 [1972] INSC 266; 1972 (2) SCC 788

5 [1984] INSC 230; 1985 (1) SCC 641

6 [1988] INSC 178; 1988 (3) SCC 410

7 [1989] INSC 109; 1989 (2) SCC 574

8 [1992] INSC 177; 1992 (3) SCC 637

9 [1995] INSC 126; 1995 (2) SCC 161

10 1981 SUPPL. SCC 87 at 273

11 [1974] INSC 13; 1974 (4) SCC 428

12 (1997) 4 SCC 306