New Delhi [India], The Supreme Court on Friday directed competent authorities to take a decision within three days on applications filed for permission to organize 'yatras' or public meetings for the purpose of educating people about the elections. A bench of Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta said in its interim order that such applications made to the competent authority should be decided within three days from the date of application. The top court has posted the case for hearing after two weeks. The top court was hearing a petition seeking quashing of the prohibitory orders. Section 144 of CrPC has been issued only on the basis of impending elections.The petition, filed by social activists Aruna Roy and Nikhil Dey, has sought a ban on the indiscriminate practice of magistrates and direction to state governments to pass "blanket orders" under Section 144 of the CrPC. Meetings, gatherings, processions or 'dharnas' before every Lok Sabha or Assembly election and till the declaration of the result. Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) deals with the power to issue orders in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger. The blanket prohibitory orders directly prevent civil society and the general public from freely discussing, participating, convening or organizing themselves on issues affecting them ahead of the elections,'' the plea said. During the hearing, advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioners, told the bench that in the last six months, a comprehensive order under Section 144 of the CrPC has been issued by the Election Commission for the entire period of the election from the time of announcement of the election till the end of the election. have been issued. Such orders prohibit all types of gatherings, meetings and demonstrations during this period.Bhushan said the bench expressed surprise at the issue of blanket orders banning gatherings during elections and asked, "How can such orders be passed?" Had applied for permission to organize 'yatra' to educate voters about their democratic rights, but was not given permission. He further said that the authorities have to take decision on such applications within a stipulated time. "The conduct of elections, being the direct reason for invoking Section 14, is neither a valid ground recognized under Section 144, nor an emerging situation justifying the imposition of a prohibitory order." Section 14 orders – of the type given here – have been passed mechanically, without any material or necessity to justify the restriction on the general public, and are an illegal interference with the right to vote,'' The petition states.The petitioners said that these restrictions apply to all persons, including those who are not affiliated with any political party or candidate, irrespective of their agenda or objective, and within municipal limits, including community grounds and halls. Are held at any place. "The restrictions are broad and pervasive, and potentially hinder civil society from engaging and creating awareness among voters in a timely manner, allowing voters to truly exercise their right to vote," the petitioners said in the petition. The argument that these sweeping orders under Section 144, issued only on the basis of impending general elections, "are clearly illegal and unconstitutional."