THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA (M)versusBHARAT KUMAR AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1997 INSC 726
- Decided
- 12 November 1997
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
A bandh that interferes with the exercise of fundamental freedoms of other citizens is unconstitutional and there is no right to call or enforce such a bandh.
Summary
The Communist Party of India (Marxist) organized a bandh in Kerala, prompting a petition that the bandh violated citizens' fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The respondents contended that the bandh interfered with the freedom of speech, assembly and personal liberty of the public at large. The Kerala High Court held that there is no constitutional right to call or enforce a bandh that curtails the fundamental freedoms of others, distinguishing it from a lawful general strike or hartal. The party appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court’s conclusion was erroneous. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court, observing that the distinction between a bandh and a hartal is well‑founded and that a bandh cannot be protected when it impairs the rights of the people as a whole. It affirmed that the fundamental rights of the public cannot be subordinated to the claims of a particular group, and consequently dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court’s order.
Issues considered
- Whether the right to call or enforce a bandh is protected under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India
- Whether a bandh can be constitutionally distinguished from a general strike or hartal
- Whether the fundamental rights of the public at large can be subordinated to the rights of a particular political group
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 19, s. Article 21
Subjects
Judgment
THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA (M) A
v.
BHARAT KUMAR AND ORS.
NOVEMBER 12, 1997
[J.S.VERMA CJ., B.N. KIRPAL AND V.N. KHARE, JJ.] B
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 19 and 21.
Bandh-Cal/ing and enforcing 'Bandh' by political parties-Held
unconstitutional by Kera/a High Court-Appeal before Supreme Court- C
Held High Court was right in its conclusion that there cannot be any right
to call or enforce a 'Bandh' which interferes with the exercise offundamental
freedoms of other citizens-Fundamental Rights of the people as _a whole
cannot be subservient to the claim of Fundamental Right of an individual or
only .a section of people-Distinction drawn by High Court between a 0
'Bandh' and a call for general strike or 'Hartal' is well made out-Held the
impugned judgment does not call for any interference.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 7728-29 of
1997.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.7.97 of the Kerala High Court
in O.P. Nos. 3040/88, 12343/91 and 7827of1997.
Soli J. Sorabjee and Harish Salve, G. Prakash, Ms. Beena Prakash and
P.P. Vineeth for the Appellant.
F
Mathai M. Piakeday and P.I. Jose, (A. Raghunath) for Krishnamurthy
Swami for the Respondent No. 1-9.
K.M.K. Nair and Bijan Ghosh for State of Kerala.
The following Order of the Court was delivered : G
Leave granted.
We have heard Mr. Harish Salve and Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, learned
counsel for the appellant and Mr. Mathai M. Paideday, learned counsel for
the respondents. H
131
'
132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A On a perusal of the impugned judgement of the High Court, referring
to which learned counsel for the appellant pointed out certain portions,
particularly in paras Band 18 including the operative part in support of their
submissions, we find that the judgment does not call for any interference. We ....
are satisfied that the distinction drawn by the High Court between a "Bandh"
B and a call for general strike or "Hartal" is well made out with reference to the
effect ofa "Bandh" on the fundamental rights of other citizens. There cannot
be any doubt that the fundamental rights of the people as a whole cannot
be subservient to the claim of fundamental right of an individual or only a
section of the people. It is on the basis of this distinction that the High Court
C has rightly concluded that there cannot be any right to ca11 or enforce a
"Bandh" which interferes with the exercise of the fundamental freedoms of
other citizens, in addition to causing national loss in many ways. We may also
add that the reasoning given by the High Court, particularly those in
paragraphs 12, 13 and 17 for the ultimate conclusion and directions in paragraph
D 18 is correct with which we are in agreement. We may also observe that the
High Court has drawn a very appropriate distinction between a "Bandh" on
the one hand and a call for general strike or "Hartal" on the other. We are
in agreement with the view taken by the High Court.
The appeals are dismissed accordingly. No costs.
E
T.N.A. Appeals dismissed.
(
[
II'
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.