Ban on the Weapon of Protest

The term 'strike' has been defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as a stoppage of work by a body of persons in an industry, or a concerted refusal or a refusal under a common understanding of any number of employed persons to continue to work or accept employment.


There are several forms of strike. Bandh is one of them. Basically 'Bandh' is people's right to assemble to protest against Govt. decisions and an anti labour measure. But in a land mark judgement on 28th July 1997, the Kerala Higli Court declared bandhs "illegal and unconstitutional" and made jt mandatory for organisers to compensate the State Govt. and citizens for losses.

A bench of the High Court was hearing a series of petitions filed by the Ernakulam Chamber of Commerce and others. The Court dismissed die contention of the respondents, CPI (M), CPL Congress, BJP and Janata Dal -that it could not interfere in the matter under Article 226. The High Court observes that organised bodies, political parties and associations by declaring bandhs, cripple the right of Indian citizen protected by the constitution.

So, the Court must have die jurisdiction to declare bandhs as unconstitutional and illegal. No political party or organisation can claim that it is entitled to paralyse industry and commerce in the state or me nation and prevent citizens not sympathetic to its viewpoint from exercising their fundamental rights.

The judges could not ignore loss or destruction of public and private property by the bandh participants. They held that organisations or parties which call a bandh and enforce them should be liable to compensate the Government, public or private citizens. Because the intention of bandh was to stall all activity, whether private or public on that day. Therefore a view can be taken that the bandh amounted to curtailing the fundamental freedom and rights of a citizen. The experience from previous ba n d h shows that when any attempt was made either to ply vehicles, attend work or open shops, it had resulted in die person concerned being threatened with dire consequences".

The Court order said, "Even if there was no express or implied threat of physical violence to those who were not bandh sympathisers, or bandh call clearly instilled menacing psychological fear in die minds of citizens, bandh used and deprived. The citizens of thieir fundamental rights.

It deprives them from enjoying their freedom. The Court pointed out that when a citizen was "coerced into not attending to his work or to prevent him from going out for work, or from practicing his profession or carrying on his business", it is a violation of his fundamental right. There is completely a violation of the right of citizen by making hindrances towards their fundamental right.

Author is the advertising consultant and maintains a free classifieds ad site where you can post and find ads for used cars, jobs, properties and more for more details visit www.adobo.in