-Galla S Kiran Kumar,Bureau Chief Telagana (Andhra Pradesh)
The advocates for the petitioners argued in the High Court that the state government does not have the authority to issue orders to the police with the help of Section 3 of the Police Act in the matter of control of assemblies and meetings.
Arguments of advocates in the High Court on Jio 1 as a deprivation of fundamental rights
Bench reserved judgment
Today, Amaravati: Advocates for the petitioners have argued in the High Court that the state government does not have the authority to issue orders to the police with the help of Section 3 of the Police Act in the matter of control of assemblies and meetings. According to Section 30, that authority is vested only in DGP and SP. He alleged that the JV1 brought by the state government is depriving the basic rights of the citizens. After the arguments of the petitioners and the state government were over in the hearing held on Tuesday, the bench announced that it was reserving the verdict. The decision will be announced within a week. A bench comprising Chief Justice Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice DVSS Somayazulu gave the order to this effect on Tuesday. It is known that the state secretary of CPI K. Ramakrishna has filed a PIL in the High Court challenging JV 1. On the same issue, former minister and TDP leader Kollu Ravindra, State Congress president Rudra Raju, BJP leader Kanna Lakshminarayana, AISF general secretary Siva Reddy and IAYF state president Rajendra Babu filed lawsuits. Senior Advocates Siddhartha Luthra, Jandhyala Ravi Shankar, Advocates T.Sreedhar, N.Ashwinikumar and Jawwaji Saratchandra appeared on behalf of the petitioners. ‘Jivo 1 was brought to prevent the opposition from giving permission. The state government is acting against the law and trying to stop the programs organized by the opposition parties. The stampede would not have happened if the state government had handled its responsibility properly. It is undemocratic to want to do it without fuss in the name of conditions. In 2008, four people were killed in a stampede at a meeting organized by the Praja Rajyam Party. At that time the DGP gave a reasonable circular. Except DGP and SP have control over assemblies, meetings, rallies and road shows. The state government has no power. Section 30 of the Police Act says ‘Give permission for activities, refuse in special circumstances’. Jive 1, in contrast, says ‘deny permission, allow only under special circumstances’.
If the CM visits, the shops are also closed.. Senior Advocate Siddhartha Luthra
Speaking on behalf of former TDP Minister Kollu Ravindra, senior advocate Siddhartha Luthra argued that after the issuance of JV 1, the police prevented Opposition leader Chandrababu Naidu from going to Kuppam. Holidays are being announced for schools in the areas where the Chief Minister is visiting. Shops are closing. They are washing the curtains in front of the houses. He said that the state government is acting with malice in the case of the ruling party and in the case of the opposition parties.
Vacation Bench has that power: Advocate Ashwini Kumar
On behalf of CPI leader K. Ramakrishna, lawyer N. Ashwinikumar argued that the vacation bench has the authority to investigate Jivo 1. Those orders are procedural decision and not administrative. That’s why the vacation bench conducted an urgent inquiry’, he explained.
No total ban: AG Sriram
AG S.Sreeram presented arguments on behalf of the state government. ‘The police have that law-abiding creature. Rallies, gatherings, meetings and marches on the roads are not completely banned. Not blocking any party. We will examine the applications received for permission and pass appropriate orders,” he said. He said that Lokesh was allowed to go on a walk.
* On the other hand, in the lawsuit filed by Kotti Balagangadhar Tilak seeking to order the state government not to allow political meetings/road shows on the roads, the arguments of lawyer VR Reddy Kovvuri were heard.
Missing paragraphs in notification: CJ
CJ Justice Prashanth Kumar Mishra responded.. He said that two paragraphs were missing in the notification issued for the inquiry during the vacation. He said that he could not say anything more from the bench. It is said that there is a need to protect the supremacy of the High Court. If the situation is not rectified now, the CJs coming to the AP High Court in the future will face difficulties one day, he said.
