The contentious government order (GO Rt No. 1) prohibiting roadshows and public demonstrations on all types of highways was postponed by the andhra pradesh high court on thursday till january 23. After hearing a lunch-motion public interest litigation case submitted by communist party of india (CPI) state secretary K ramakrishna on Wednesday, a division bench of the state high court made up of Justice B Devanand and Justice Krupasagar granted interim directions to this effect. The administration was instructed by the bench to submit a rebuttal by january 20 in front of the regular bench.
In his PIL, ramakrishna criticised the GO and claimed that it had undermined peoples' fundamental rights to free speech and assembly. On state and federal roadways, the ap administration had issued the GO banning public gatherings and road shows. The order was issued in response to the 11 deaths that occurred as a result of stampedes during public gatherings that Nara Chandrababu Naidu, the leader of the TDP, staged in nellore and Guntur. Advocate General Shriram raised concerns about the PIL, saying that it was designed to fit the vacation bench hearing.
The attorney general added that the government is unaware of Ramakrishna's PIL submission. He vehemently objected, claiming there was no room for the issue pertaining to the government's policy decision to be added to the roster. He continued by saying that instances involving policy decisions shouldn't be heard by the vacation bench. The AG clarified GO 1 by asserting that the word "ban" or "prohibition" on gatherings was never used in the GO.
In his PIL, ramakrishna criticised the GO and claimed that it had undermined peoples' fundamental rights to free speech and assembly. On state and federal roadways, the ap administration had issued the GO banning public gatherings and road shows. The order was issued in response to the 11 deaths that occurred as a result of stampedes during public gatherings that Nara Chandrababu Naidu, the leader of the TDP, staged in nellore and Guntur. Advocate General Shriram raised concerns about the PIL, saying that it was designed to fit the vacation bench hearing.
The attorney general added that the government is unaware of Ramakrishna's PIL submission. He vehemently objected, claiming there was no room for the issue pertaining to the government's policy decision to be added to the roster. He continued by saying that instances involving policy decisions shouldn't be heard by the vacation bench. The AG clarified GO 1 by asserting that the word "ban" or "prohibition" on gatherings was never used in the GO.
