The judgment established that the call for a bandh and its enforcement are unconstitutional, emphasizing the duty of the court to protect citizens' fundamental rights.

ORDER :

B.N. Agrawal, J.

1. Heard Shri Guru Krishna Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri Altaf Ahmed, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents 1 and 2, who stated that he represents the Government of Tamil Nadu as well, and Shri A.K. Ganguli, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Party, Respondent 3.

2. The present petitioner filed a writ petition, bearing No. 31435 of 2007, before the Madras High Court on 26-9-2007, making a prayer therein for a declaration that the call given for a bandh and holding of a bandh in the State of Tamil Nadu either on 1-10-2007 or on any other date by Respondents 3 to 7, which are political parties, namely, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Indian National Congress, Communist Party of India (Marxist), Communist Party of India and Pattali Makkal Katchi, were violative of Articles 19 and 21 besides the directive principles of State policy and the fundamental duties enshrined under the Constitution of India. Interim prayer was made in the writ petition for restraining Respondents 3 to 7 from proceeding with the call for bandh in the State of Tamil Nadu given by them for 1-10-2007 or on any other date in terms of the resolution passed in the meeting held on 24-9-2007.

3. The said writ petition was placed for hearing before a Division Bench of the Madras High Court presided over by the learned Chief Justice of that Court on 27-9-2007. On that day, undisputedly, a copy of the writ petition together with the interim petition was served upon the learned Advocate General of the State of Tamil Nadu, who appeared in the Court, and submitted that the call given by the aforesaid political parties was for strike/hartal and not bandh. It was further submitted that, according to the judgment of this Court in Communist Party of India (M) v. Bharat Kumar, (1998)1 SCC 201, what is prohibited is call for bandh and its enforcement and not strike/hartal. He then submitted that there was a distinction between call for bandh and call for hartal/strike. According to the learned Advocate General, as the call was not given for bandh but strike/hartal, the judgment rendered by this Court in Communist Party of India (M)1 shall have no application, as such, the writ petition was fit to be dismissed.

4. Before the High Court, it appears that a copy of the resolution dated 24-9-2007, passed in the meeting of the aforesaid political parties, which was perhaps in Tamil, was produced and that was officially translated. The relevant portion of the translated version, as quoted by the High Court in its order, runs thus:

" in order to make understand the fact that the support of the people is only to implement the Sethu Samudram Project expeditiously to the Central Government, it is resolved to conduct total cessation of work and closure of shops on the 1st of October and to conduct a general meeting of the leaders of all parties on the 30th day of September, at Chennai.

5. Before the High Court, it was pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that the Director of Examination (Education Department) had postponed the supplementary examination, which was to be conducted from 1-10-2007 to 4-10-2007, and the Law University had also postponed the counselling which was scheduled for 4-10-2007, in view of the bandh call given by the political parties. It was further pointed out that the position would be peculiar as the Chief Minister himself, being the leader of a political party (Respondent 3), had chaired the meeting and taken the decision and, therefore, the call given was for a State-wide bandh.

6. After taking into consideration the decision of this Court referred to above, the High Court prima facie, recorded a finding that the call given by the aforesaid political parties was for bandh and not strike/hartal as claimed by them.. After recording this finding, the High Court admitted the writ petition, issued rule returnable by 24-10-2007, and directed the case to be placed on that date at 2