Section 144, Excessive Restrictions: On Poll-Time Curbs

Context

Recently, petition against poll-time curbs raises legitimate questions about public participation.

Challenging Election Prohibitory Orders: Balancing Public Order and Civil Society Participation

• Election Prohibitory Orders: Election time prohibitory orders are seldom questioned, even if they amount to blanket restrictions that curb all gatherings. 
• Order Challenged Before Supreme Court: The clamping of prohibitory orders to prevent unauthorized meetings and processions in the run-up to the ongoing general election has been challenged in the Supreme Court of India by several activists. 
• Application Process Disparity: Political parties routinely seek permission for rallies, public meetings, and road shows.
  • Civil society groups often face unresponsiveness or denial when seeking similar permissions.
• Concerns Raised: Authorities aim to maintain public order during election campaigns. 
  • Legitimate question arises regarding the constitutionality of blanket orders and application denials.
• Impact on Civil Society Activities: Petitioners unable to conduct voter awareness programs due to prohibitory orders. It hinders efforts to inform voters about election candidates and disclosures made in affidavits.

Enroll now for UPSC Online Course

Questioning Section 144

• Section 144: This law empowers the magistrate of any state or union territory in India to pass an order prohibiting the gathering of four or more people in a specified area.
• Limitations of Section 144: Section 144 grants the power to direct actions or refrains from certain activities. Court judgments have placed limits on this power, particularly concerning assemblies and public activities.
• Restrictive Nature of Section 144 Orders: Orders under Section 144 typically limit assemblies and require permission for public activities. Such restrictions may hinder public participation in democratic processes.
• Judicial Response: Courts question the validity of blanket Section 144 orders, particularly concerning voter education activities. Interim orders direct timely processing of applications for public gatherings.
• Election Influence: Debate arises on whether elections justify blanket restrictions on public participation. Role of the Election Commission of India (ECI) and its potential influence on such restrictions is questioned.
• Concerns Raised: Debate on whether election-related powers can justify broad restrictions on public activities. Potential shift of statutory powers from designated authorities to the ECI raises constitutional questions.

Conclusion

The case highlights the delicate balance between maintaining public order and ensuring democratic participation. Further examination is needed to determine the extent of discretionary powers during elections and their impact on civil liberties.

DOWNLOAD PDF