MEGHALAYA EDITORS AND PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION Vs. REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant, Meghalaya Editors and Publishers Association has moved this application seeking leave to file appropriate intervening application in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) Petition [WP(C) No.127 of 2015] that was disposed of on 17.03.2016. The applicant has moved this application with reference to a provision made in the order dated 17.03.2016 for considering revival of the said PIL petition on an appropriate miscellaneous application, if and when required.

(2.) The applicant-association seeks to state its grievance in regard to one of the directions issued in the said PIL petition on 27.05.2015, whereby restrictions were put over publication of any statement by the banned organization or any other organization, which might have the effect of disturbing the even tempo of public life and cause violation of fundamental rights of the citizens. It has been indicated in the instant application that on being aggrieved of the restriction so put by this Court in the order dated 27.05.2015, the applicant filed a petition for Special Leave to Appeal [SLP] before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was, however, withdrawn on 18.09.2015 while seeking liberty to move this Court for appropriate relief. It is noticed that in the aforesaid detailed order dated 27.05.2015, a Full Bench of this Court took note of the then obtaining scenario, where the functioning of even essential services was being disrupted in the State of Meghalaya because of regular calls of bandh in the name of banned organization or other organizations. This Court referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Communist Party of India (M) v. Bharat Kumar and others, 1998 1 SCC 201 as also to the decisions of various High Courts; and in view of the submissions made by the Advocate General and the Director General of police, issued several directions, essentially aimed at restoring the rule of law and removing the fear psyche of the common citizens. The part of directions issued by this Court read as under: -

(3.) It is also noticed that this Court monitored the implementation of directions so issued in the order dated 27.05.2015 for some time but ultimately, after being informed that the directions had been substantially complied with, the monitoring was closed on 10.12.2015. The said PIL petition, of course, remained pending even after 10.12.2015 for dealing with other peripheral issues, but was finally disposed of on 17.03.2016 while providing for its re-opening or further directions in the following: -