Back
1997(9) Supreme 415
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.S. Verma, CJI., B.N. Kirpal, V.N. Khare, JJ.
The Communist Party of India (M) -Appellant
versus
Bharat Kumar & Ors. -Respondents
Civil appeal Nos. 7728-29 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 20325-26 of 1997)
Decided on 12-11-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant, Soli J. Sorabjee, Harish Salve, Sr. Advocates, G. Prakash, Ms. Beena Prakash, P.P. Vineeth, Advocates.
For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 9, Mathai M. Paikeday, Sr. Advocate, P.I. Jose, (A. Raghunath) Advocate for Krishnamurthy Swami, Advocate/Advocates.
For the State of Kerala, K.M.K. Nair, Bijan Ghosh, Advocates.
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. 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.
3. On a perusal of the impugned judgment 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.
4. The appeals are dismissed accordingly. No costs.
Appeals dismissed.
*********
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
The Communist Party of India (M) v. Bharat Kumar & Ors., 1997(9) Supreme 415
00026
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
