Open iDraf
The Communist Party Of India (m) v. Bharat Kumar

The Communist Party Of India (m)
v.
Bharat Kumar

(Supreme Court Of India)

Civil Appeal No. 7728-29 Of 1997 (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20325- 26 Of 1997) | 12-11-1997


B.N. Kirpal, J.

Leave granted.

2. We have heard Mr. Harish Salve and Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Mathai M. Paikeday, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. 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 13 and 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" and a call for general strike or "Hartal" is well made out with reference to the effect of a "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 has rightly concluded that there cannot be any right to call 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 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.

Appeals dismissed.

Advocates List

For the Appellant - Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee and Mr. Harish Salve, Sr. Advocates, with Mr. G. Prakash, Ms. Beena Prakash and Mr. P.P. Vineeth, Advocates. For the Respondent Mr. Mathai M. Paikeday, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. P.I. Jose, Mr. A. Raghunath, Advocates. For the State of Kerala Mr. K.M.K. Nair and Mr. Bijan Ghosh, Advocates.

For Petitioner
  • Shekhar Naphade
  • Mahesh Agrawal
  • Tarun Dua
For Respondent
  • S. Vani
  • B. Sunita Rao
  • Sushil Kumar Pathak

Bench List

HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. J.S. VERMA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KIRPAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. KHARE

Eq Citation

(1998) 1 SCC 201

AIR 1998 SC 184

JT 1997 (9) SC 101

LQ/SC/1997/1484

HeadNote

Constitution of India — Arts. 19(1)(a) & (g) — Bandh — Distinction between Bandh and general strike or Hartal — Held, fundamental rights of people as a whole cannot be subservient to claim of fundamental right of an individual or only a section of people — It is on basis of this distinction that High Court has rightly concluded that there cannot be any right to call or enforce a Bandh which interferes with exercise of fundamental freedoms of other citizens in addition to causing national loss in many ways — Reasoning given by High Court in paragraphs 12, 13 and 17 for ultimate conclusion and directions in paragraph 18 is correct — 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