The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a petition that seeks to quash prohibitory orders under section 144 of the CrPC issued "solely" on the grounds of impending elections.

A bench of Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta also directed that the competent authority will decide within three days the applications filed to seek permission for conducting 'yatras' or public meetings aimed at educating people on elections.

The bench was hearing a plea by social workers Aruna Roy and Nikhil Dey seeking to restrain the indiscriminate practice of magistrates and state governments to pass "blanket orders" under section 144 of the CrPC to prohibit meetings, gatherings, processions or 'dharnas' ahead of every Lok Sabha or Assembly election and until the declaration of results.

Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) deals with the power to issue orders in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger.

"Something very fantastic is happening. In the last six months, blanket orders under section 144 (of CrPC) are being issued for the whole duration of elections from the time of announcement of election by the Election Commission till the end of elections," advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners, told the bench.

He said that such orders prohibit all kinds of assemblies, meetings and demonstrations during the duration of elections.

"How can such orders be passed," the bench observed.

Bhushan said there were three decisions of the apex court's Constitution benches that said unless there was well-founded apprehension of breach of peace, such orders cannot be passed.

He referred to a March 16 order under section 144 of the CrPC issued in Rajasthan which said the order would come into effect on March 16 and will remain effective in the entire Barmer district till June 6.

Bhushan said the petitioners had applied for permission to conduct a 'yatra' to educate voters about their democratic rights during last year's Assembly election, but permission was not granted.

He said the authorities must decide on such applications within a stipulated time.

The bench, by way of an interim order, said such applications made to the competent authority be decided within three days from the date of making the application.

The bench has posted the matter for hearing after two weeks.

"These blanket prohibitory orders directly affect the civil society and general public from freely discussing, participating, organising or mobilising on issues affecting them ahead of elections," the plea said.

It claimed that the conduct of elections, being the ostensible reason for invoking section 144, is neither a valid ground recognised under section 144 nor an emergent situation to justify the imposition of "sweeping prohibitory orders".

The plea alleged that such orders have been passed mechanically without any material or exigency to justify the prohibition on the general public, and amounts to an illegal interference with the right to vote.

It said these blanket orders under section 144, issued solely on the grounds of the impending general elections, were "manifestly illegal and unconstitutional" on the grounds, including that they "thwart and obstruct public participation in the democratic process - and that such a disproportionate and blanket exercise directly impinges upon freedoms guaranteed under Article 19, the right to vote, and violates a basic feature of the Constitution - i.e., free and fair elections".

The plea alleged that the democratic conduct of elections suffers as a result of these prohibitory orders creating a climate of fear and chilling effect among citizens as public participation is made subject to a strict "policing licence or permit regime".

Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by The Telegraph Online staff and has been published from a syndicated feed.