APHC010547282025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 28189/2025 Between: BODE RAMACHANDRA YADAV, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, PRESIDENT OF BHARATHA CHAITANYA YUVAJANA PARTY, S/0 BODE MUNEPPA, OCCUPATION PRESIDENT OF A POLITICAL PARTY, R/0 D.NO. 31-39/9, SRI SUNANDA NILAYAM, KOTHA INDIU, LIC COLONY,PUNGANUR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 517247 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, A.P.STATE SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, A.P.POLICE HEADQUARTERS, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANAKAPALLI, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NARSIPATNAM, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NAKKAPALLI, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 6. THE SUBINSPECTOR OF POLICE, NAKKAPALLI, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K MADHAVI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... a Writ of Mandamus setting aside the proceedings issued Respondent No.3 herein vide proceedings C.No. 234/SB-AKP/2025 dated 10.10.2025 declaring the same as illegal. arbitrary, capricious whimsical and violative of Article 19, Article 21 of the Constitution of India and catena of judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and consequently direct the Respondents more specifically Respondent No. 3 to grant all necessary permissions and deploy adequate police force allowing the petitioner along with his Y plus Category CRPF Security Personnel, followers and media personnel to visit the venue of Rajaiahpeta Village, Nakkapally Mandal of Anakapalli District to secure the ends of justice.” 2. Sri P.V.G.Umesh Chandra, learned counsel assisted by Ms.Karra Madhavi, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner being a political activist, at request of the farmers, has undertaken a protest activity against the land acquisition for a project to be initiated for the construction of Bulk Drug Park against the will of the farmers and to support them. Learned counsel would further submit that, in that connection, the Petitioner along with his followers intended to visit Rajaiahpeta Village, Anakapalli District to express his solidarity to the farmers. Learned counsel would submit that, on 04.10.2025 when the Petitioner started proceeding towards the said village, the Respondent – Police deter him and issued a notice to him stating that Section 30 of the Police Act was prevailing and directed him to seek permission. It is submitted that in spite of the representations of the Petitioner and the order dated 09.10.2025 in W.P.No.27929 of 2025, the Respondent Authorities has not considered the representation of the Petitioner. Learned counsel would further submit that 3 the Respondents are not allowing the Petitioner to visit Rajaiahpeta Village to express their solidarity towards the farmers and to protest the land acquisition for the construction of Bulk Drug Park, which is violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 3. Ms.A.Jayanthi, learned Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, would submit that the Government had issued land acquisition notification through wide paper publication for industrial development and legally completed the land acquisition process by paying adequate compensation to the land loosers. It is further submitted that there are several cases registered against the Petitioner and his followers. It is further submitted that the provocative speeches of the Petitioner result in law and order issue. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that, in the view of the past criminal history and his intention to support a group which is not peacefully conducting the protest and indulging in violence, would result in law and order problem and damage to public property and safety. Learned Government Pleader would submit that there are several cases registered against the Petitioner in various Police Stations and the intention of the Petitioner to visit Rajaiahpeta Village is nothing but to instigate the farmers who are against the land acquisition scheme. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 4. The material facts which led to filing of the present petition are not in dispute. There is also no dispute that the Petitioner, who is the President of a Political Party, along with his followers and some of the farmers, has been 4 agitating against the Bulk Drug Park Project. The contention of the Petitioner is that, while the Petitioner was proceeding towards Rajaiahpeta Village, Nakkapalli Mandal, to protest the said project, the Police deterred him and has issued a notice under Section 168 of BNSS stating that Section 30 of Police Act was in force and there was every possibility of law and order problem if he enters the said village. It is the further contention of the Petitioner that inspite of the order dated 09.10.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.27929 of 2025, Respondent – Police have not considered the representation of the petitioner. 5. The right to assemble peacefully and to move from one place to any part of the country by taking the voice of the farmers to ventilate their grievance on the land acquisition proceedings, is the fundamental right of the Petitioner and the farmers as citizens of this country guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b) and (d) of the Constitution of India. In the case of Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar1 the Apex Court held that right to protest is a fundamental right and the State must aid the right to assembly of the citizens. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad2, held that the State cannot by law abridge or take away the right of assembly by prohibiting assembly on every public street or public place. The State can only make regulations in aid of the right of assembly of each citizen and can only impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order. 1 (1962) Supp 3 SCR 369 2 (1973) 1 SCC 227 5 6. In the case of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India3 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that holding peaceful demonstration by the citizens of the country in order to air their grievances and to ensure that these grievances are heard in the relevant quarters, is its fundamental right. This right is specifically enshrined under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India. Article 19(1)(a) confers a very valuable right on the citizens, namely, right of free speech. Likewise, Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India gives right to assemble peacefully and without arms. 7. Therefore, together, both these rights ensure that the people of this country have right to assemble peacefully and protest against any of the actions or the decisions taken by the Government or other governmental authorities which are not to their liking. The Apex Court also in the above referred judgments held that a particular cause which, in the first instance, may appear to be insignificant or irrelevant may gain momentum and acceptability when it is duly voiced and debated and that is the reason that this Court has always protected the valuable right of peaceful and orderly demonstrations and protests. 8. In the instant case also, as already noticed supra, the Petitioner intends to protest against the Bulk Drug Park, to meet the famers in Rajaiahpeta Village, Nakkapalli Mandal, to offer them moral support, and to express their solidarity. The Petitioner, who is the President of a Political Party, along with his followers and some of the farmers, has been agitating against the said 3 AIR 2018 SC 3476 = 2018 (10) SCJ 685 6 project land publicly as it is their fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 19 (1) (a), 19 (1) (b) and 19 (1) (d) of the Constitution of India. However, they have to carry on their protest peacefully and they should not resort to any violence during the said visit. 9. Considering the submissions made, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Petitioner is permitted to visit Rajaiahpeta Village, Anakapalli District on 27.10.2025 between 11.30 a.m., and 01.30 p.m, along with his personal staff of 6 persons. Respondent – Police are directed to provide four Y + CRPF security staff personnel to the Petitioner. Police are further directed to allow 15 media persons and six four wheeler vehicles along with the Petitioner and to see that there shall not be gathering of more than 26 villagers. Police are further directed to videograph the proceedings. Petitioner is further directed not to raise any caste related issues and not to provoke the public politically. Police are directed to take necessary precautions to see that the said visit will be conducted in a peaceful manner. In case of occurrence of any untoward incident, Police are directed to take necessary steps in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:17.10.2025 Note: Issue C.C today B/o. Dinesh 7 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.28189 of 2025 Dt.17.10.2025 Dinesh