This article is written by Sai Shriya Potla. The article provides a detailed analysis of the judgement of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) vs. the Chief Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu (2007). The article further elaborates on the facts of the case, issues, arguments by the petitioner and respondent, the rationale behind the judgement, critical analysis of the case and aftermath of the case.

Introduction

What does the term “bundh” mean?

The literal meaning of bundh is something closed or locked. It is a situation where business activities and transport and communication services are shut down to protest against any government action or policy. Although we use the terms “bundh” and “strike” as synonyms, both have distinct meanings. A strike is a peaceful demonstration by an association or union to express their concerns to the government. It is a legal relief provided to employees under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, it is not an absolute right, there are certain conditions that need to be followed to conduct a strike, such as that employees cannot strike without providing notice to the employer, a strike cannot be held in the midst of any conciliation proceedings between workers and management and no strike can be held if the industrial dispute is referred to any court or tribunal. In contrast, bundh involves violence, the use of lethal weapons and the destruction of public property. Generally, bundhs are held by political parties to meet their political policies or motives.

India is known for its commitment to being a non-violent and peaceful state. The concept of non-violence goes back to the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi. Since then, it has been the foundation for many legislations and judicial decisions. The Supreme Court, in the judgement of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam vs. the Chief Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu (2007) (hereinafter referred to as “AIADMK”), keeping in mind the principle of non-violence, held bundh to be illegal and unconstitutional.

Details of the case

• Name of the case: All India Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam vs. the Chief Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu
• Name of the Petitioner: All India Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK)
• Name of the Respondent: The Chief Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu
• Citation: (2007) 1 scale 607
• Date of judgement: 30.09.2007
• Case type: Special leave petition
• Bench: Justice B. N. Agrawal and Justice P. P. Naolekar
• Name of the Court: Supreme Court of India
• Laws involved: Article 19 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India

Facts of the case

The present case is a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court of India against the orders issued by the Chief Secretary of the state of Tamil Nadu. On September 27, 2007, the petitioner filed a writ petition along with an interim petition before the High Court of Madras to provide relief. The relief includes the issuance of a declaration to political parties Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, the Indian National Congress, the Communist Party of India (Marxist), the Communist Party of India and Pattali Makkal Katchi to restrain them from holding a bundh on October 1, 2007. The petitioner stated that it violates Article 19 and Article 21, directive principles of state policy and fundamental duties of the Indian Constitution.

On September 24, 2007, the aforementioned political parties passed a resolution for the complete cession of work and shops on October 1, 2007, in the state of Tamil Nadu to demonstrate public support to the central government on the implementation of the Sethu Samudhram Project. 

The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court against the resolution passed by the political parties. The petitioner argued that the director of examination (education department) had postponed the supplementary examination, which was supposed to be held from October 1, 2007, to October 4, 2007. The law university also postponed counselling until October 4, 2007, in view of the bundh. 

The Advocate General of the state of Tamil Nadu argued that the political parties planned to conduct a strike/hartal, not a bundh. The advocate general referred to the case of the Communist Party of India (M) vs. Bharat Kumar & Ors. (1997) and argued that the Supreme Court prohibited the conduct of a bundh, not a strike/hartal and since in the present case, the political parties called for a strike/hartal, the advocate general contended that the High Court should dismiss the present writ petition.

After hearing the contentions of both parties, the High Court admitted the writ petition and held that the resolution passed the political parties called for a bundh, not a strike/hartal. The court further issued the following directions to the Chief Secretary of the government, the Director General of the police and all District Collectors:

1. To ensure no political party, group or association conducts any bundh by means of force or intimidation on October 1, 2007.
2. To ensure the smooth operation and peaceful enjoyment of public transport, including civil aviation, on October 1, 2007.
3. To take the necessary steps against persons involved in interfering with the free movement of citizens in the state of Tamil Nadu on October 1, 2007.
4. The High Court directed the Chief Secretary to issue a press note to print media and electronic media on September 29, 2007, to inform the citizens of the steps taken by the police about the bundh.
5. The High Court further stated that the abovementioned directions should be followed along with the directions issued by the Chief Secretary to the government

On September 27, 2007, the Chief Secretary issued certain directions in alignment with direction no. (V) of the High Court. They include:

1. Adequate protection must be provided for essential services like telephone and telecommunication, water supply, milk distribution, power supply, fire services, newspapers and hospitals, and ensure they function as they regularly do.
2. Protection of important government buildings, power stations, sub-stations, telecommunications and bridges, oil installations, railway bridges, etc.
3. Ensure adequate arrangements to open patrol immediately.
4. Ensure arrangements for milk and other essential products.
5. Protection to the High Court and other courts situated in the state of Tamil Nadu.
6. To take appropriate action against people involved in anti-social elements and acts of violence or vandalism,
7. Maintain a visible police presence around the state.
8. Police bandobast outside the railway stations, bus depots, main roads, main junctions, hospitals, courts, schools and colleges.
9. Ensure adequate protection in all markets and business places.
10. All police control rooms will keep track of the incidents around the state and take stern action against the offenders.
11. Ensure the hartal takes place peacefully. 
12. The District Superintendent of Police has the authority to use the vehicles of the collectors if required.

Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the petitioner filed an SLP before the Supreme Court on September 29, 2007. 

Issues in the case 

• Whether a call for bundh by any political party, group or association is unconstitutional?
• Whether any political party have the authority to prevent citizens from exercising their fundamental rights?

Laws discussed in the case

Article 19 of the Indian Constitution

Article 19 of the Indian Constitution guarantees six freedoms to every citizen. It includes:

1. Freedom of speech and expression
2. Freedom of assembly
3. Freedom to form associations
4. Freedom of movement
5. Freedom to reside and settle
6. Freedom of profession, occupation, trade or business

The present case only deals with freedom of speech and expression and freedom of assembly. It is explained in a detailed manner below:

Freedom of speech and expression allows every citizen to express their opinion or ideas on any issue by way of words, either written or spoken, by visual representation or by any other mode of communication. However, this freedom is not absolute. Article 19(2) imposes reasonable restrictions on certain grounds, which include the sovereignty of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency and morality, contempt of court, defamation and incitement to any offence.

Freedom of assembly enables the citizens to form an assembly peacefully and without any arms to form meetings or take any processions. However, this freedom is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(3), which include the interests of sovereignty, integrity and public order.

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. This right is available to both citizens and non-citizens. Article 21 is subject to the procedure established by law, which embodies the principles of natural justice, which means the procedure must be just, fair and reasonable.

The Supreme Court widened the scope of Article 21 in the case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978). The Supreme Court included many rights under Article 21 through various judgements. Some of these rights include the right to live with human dignity, the right to livelihood, the right to shelter, the right to health, the right to a clean environment, the right against sexual harassment in the workplace and the right to privacy.

Contentions of the parties

Petitioner

• The petitioner contended that the call for bundh by the political parties violated the freedom specified under Article 19 and the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Respondent

• The respondent contended that a bundh can be conducted either peacefully or violently and the court could intervene only if a bundh is conducted violently. The respondent referred to the case of Kameshwar Prasad and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Anr. (1962) and argued that the court cannot presume that the bundh will always lead to violence and disruption of public peace.
• The advocate general argued that the court could not compel the state to make laws or issue any directions with regard to bundh since there is no mention of the term “bundh” in the Constitution.
• The respondents argued that no relief can be granted against the political parties under Article 226 by the High Court of Madras.

Judgement of the case

The 2-judge bench of the Apex Court delivered the judgement that a bundh held by any political party, group or association is illegal and unconstitutional.

The Apex Court observed that there is no legislative definition of the term “bundh” to check its constitutional validity. However, the court further stated that the absence of the term does not curtail the right of the citizens to approach the court for relief. The Supreme Court held that holding a bundh abstains from the right of free movement of the citizens and the right to carry on their occupation. Since the legislature did not make any law regulating this matter, the court has the authority to issue an order to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of the citizens.

The Supreme Court further added that no political party, group or association has the right to prevent citizens from exercising their fundamental rights or performing their duties for the benefit of the political parties or the state. Such actions of the political parties are considered unreasonable in the eyes of the law.

The Supreme Court disapproved the contention of the respondent about the presumption of violence in a bundh by the court. The court stated that the respondent’s contention does not apply in this situation since this court already differentiated between bundh and strike in the case of the Communist Party of India (M) vs. Bharat Kumar & Ors. (1997). In bundh, there is a presence of violence along with restraint on citizens’ freedom of movement and carrying on their day-to-day activities. Although the state is empowered to control possible violence by holding a bundh, in the present day-to-day cases around us, the reluctance of the government to prevent the violence or the political submission of the law-enforcing agencies against the political will of the government will lead to no action being taken to prevent the violence or to protect the public or private property of the state. Hence, the Apex Court stated that it was not generalising but merely taking into account what happens in a bundh.

In response to the respondent’s contention that no relief can be granted against the political parties under Article 226 in this proceeding, the Apex Court held that it has sufficient jurisdiction to grant relief to the petitioner since the bundh would affect the fundamental rights of the citizen. The Supreme Court held bundh to be unconstitutional since it has an adverse effect on the interest of the country as it can halt the business, which in turn results in a loss of production and can also lead to the destruction of public and private property. The Apex Court was of the opinion that if the political parties and the organisers call for holding a bundh, they will be liable to compensate the government for the loss caused to the public.

In light of the above observations concerning the issues and contentions of the parties, the Supreme Court decided that bundh is illegal and unconstitutional and the respondent political parties were restrained from holding a bundh in the state of Tamil Nadu `on October 1, 2007 or on any other day.

Generally, a court restrains itself from passing main relief as an interim order. However, in rare cases, like in the present matter, the Supreme Court, keeping in mind the urgency of the matter and lack of time, passed an interim order despite political parties such as the Indian National Congress, the Communist Party of India (Marxist), the Communist Party of India and Pattali Makkal Katchi not appearing before the court. Only the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam party appeared before the Supreme Court.

Aftermath of the case

All India Dravida Munnetra Kazhgam vs. L. K. Tripathi & Ors. (2009)

In this case, the petitioner, the AIADMK party, filed a petition before the Supreme Court contending that the respondents disobeyed the order of the court delivered in the case of AIADMK vs. the Chief Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu (2007) and were liable under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 129 of the Indian Constitution. 

Facts of the case

The petitioner argued that all the political parties conducted the bundh on 1 October 2007 leading to the shutdown of buses owned by the state transport corporation, preventing 45,000 private buses from functioning and forcefully closing down all the business operations in the state of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner further contended that the 50,000 employees of the state transport corporation were prevented from working on the day of the bundh.

The petitioners also argued that respondent no. 6, Mr. T.R. Balu, Union Minister for Shipping and Surface Transport, is liable for criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of the Courts Act, 1971 for his statements made at the venue of the hunger strike conducted on October 1, 2007. The petitioner contended that the statements made by respondent No. 6 defame the judiciary. 

In the reply affidavit filed by the respondent no. 01, Mr. L. K. Tripathi claimed that transport and communication and the courts functioned normally on  October 1 2007. He further stated that as soon as the Apex Court passed the restraint order on September 30, 2007, he sent the directions to the collectors to ensure the maintenance of law and order on 1 October 2007. He further added that a “police bandobast” was provided to the Madras High Court, government buildings of the centre and the state, educational institutions, state trade corporations, bus stops, railway stations and other business areas.

The respondent no. 02, Mr. P. Rajendran, stated in the reply affidavit filed by him the action taken by the police to ensure law and order in the state on the day of bundh. He denied the contentions of the petitioners that the Dravida Munnetra Kazhgam party closed the business operations and any use of deadly weapons.

The respondent no. 3 Mr. Debendranath Sarangi, in his reply affidavit, mentioned the steps taken by him to ascertain the normal operation of the state trading operation. He stated that the same orders were provided to branch managers and divisional managers of various state transport undertakings. He further stated, however, that many workers did not turn up to work on 1 October 2007 and out of the workers who came to work on that day, many of them did not sign the duty chart and left the workplace as soon as demonstrations started in front of the depots. The respondent stated that they continued the work with the available crew and he held that the services gradually increased. He denied the prevention of workers from carrying out their duties. The respondents also stated that workers who did not come to work were not given their wages on 1 October 2007 as per their policy of “no work, no pay.”

The respondent no. 4, Mr. Karunanidhi, stated in the counter affidavit filed by him that the call for bundh on 1 October 2007 by the democratic progressive alliance was based on concern over the delay of the central government over the Sethu Samudram project. However, after analysing the news reports on television and the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of AIADMK vs. the Chief Secretary, the State of Tamil Nadu (2007) called for the bundh, which was supposed to be held on 1 October 2007. He further added that the same was conveyed to all the political parties and he also instructed the government officials to carry out the judgement of the court.

The respondent no. 5 in the affidavit filed by him stated that he was in his constituency (Tiruchirapalli) on the day of the court’s judgement on 30 September 2007. He stated that he conveyed to respondent no. 03 to conduct normal operations in relation to transportation services. He further added that he contacted all the trade unions in Trichy and directed them to ask the workers to join work on 1 October 2007.

The respondent no. 6, Mr. T. R. Baalu, stated in his counter affidavit that he has the highest regard for the judiciary and stated his belief in the independence of the judiciary. He stated that the contempt petition was against him for defaming him and tarnishing his political image as a union minister. He also alleged that the petitioner, the main opposition party of the state of Tamil Nadu, was trying to defame him, which they could not do in the political arena. He further added that the statements made by him were an exercise of his freedom of speech and expression and were not to instigate any bundh.

The Supreme Court heard the arguments of both parties on 11 November 2008. But the court adjourned on 10 December 2008, to give the petitioner two weeks to file an additional affidavit on respondent no. 6.  The Apex Court, in relation to the application made by the petitioner to examine the speech made by respondent no. 06, issued notice to the resident manager of Times of India and Jaya T. V. to produce full tapes of the speech made by the respondent.

Mr. Vasudev Rao, authorised signatory of Times Global Broadcasting Company Limited, now Times of India, in response to the notice issued by the Apex Court, held that the company cannot provide the original tapes of the speech made by respondent no. 06, as the company maintains the content uplinked and downlinked only for the period of 90 days after its telecast with regard to the uplinking and downlinking guidelines issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, the government of India.

The petitioner filed the affidavit on behalf of Mr. M. Ramasubramanian, Mr. S. Ravikumar and R. Thillai, who are reporters, cameramen and senior sub-editors, respectively, who work with Jaya TV.  Mr. M. Ramasubramanian stated in his affidavit that he was assigned to cover the hunger strike in front of the state guest house in Chennai on October 1, 2007. He added that he, along with S. Ravikumar and Satish (camera assistant), then went to cover the speech of respondent no. 06 and stated that he handed over the recorded speech to Mr. R. Thillai. In the affidavit, Mr. R. Thillai stated that Jaya TV has not shifted to digital format and is still using cameras with digital tapes, which are being ingested into the visual editing system “Avid”, so that the tapes can be reused for recording other events. Mr. R. Thillai therefore stated that he could not provide the original speech made by respondent no. 6.  He stated that he selected the most objectionable statements made by respondent no. 06  for the telecast. 

The respondent no. 6 filed a reply against the affidavits of Mr. M. Ramasubramanian, Mr. S. Ravikumar and R. Thillai, stating that Jaya TV is owned by the AIADMK party, which is the petitioner in this case and hence Jaya TV cannot be treated as an independent and unbiased media channel. The respondent no. 06 further added that the failure of the channel to provide the original tapes of the speech must be treated as enough reason to reject the affidavit made by the members of Jaya TV.

Issues of the case

1. Whether respondents no. 01 to 05 are liable under the Contempt of the Court Act, 1971 and Article 129 of the Constitution?
2. Whether respondent no. 06 is liable for criminal contempt as mentioned under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of the Courts Act, 1971?

Contentions of the petitioner

1. The petitioner contended that the claim of respondent no. 04 of withdrawal of the bundh is a sham because no directions were given to government servants regarding this matter. The petitioner further stated that the workers of the political parties were involved in physical violence and used lethal weapons on 1 October 2007. The petitioner stated that respondent no. 04 must be held liable for the events that transpired on 1 October 2007. The petitioner argued that respondent no. 04 violated the court’s order and deliberately went on a hunger strike.
2. The petitioner argued that respondent no. 04 indirectly encouraged the enforcement of the bundh in the state transport corporation and therefore, there were no functioning buses on 1 October 2007. The petitioner stated that the bundh organised by the Democratic Progressive Alliance along with the negligence of respondent no. 01, 02 and 03, caused a Rs. 10 crore loss to the Tamil Nadu state transport corporation and therefore the respondents should compensate the amount to the state transport corporation.
3. The petitioner contended that respondent no. 06 is guilty of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of the Courts Act, 1971.
4. The petitioner argued that the respondents no. 01, 02, 03, 04, and 05 are guilty of civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of the Courts Act, 1971, for wilfully disobeying the court’s order.

Contentions of the respondents 

1. The respondent no.01 and respondent no. 02 contended they had directed all officers to maintain law and order in the state of Tamil Nadu and provided police bandobast for protection for hospitals, courts, business arenas, bus depots and railway stations around the state. They further contended that they could not be held liable just because the members of the political party were on hunger strike. The respondents no. 1 and no. 02 stated that the petitioner did not submit any evidence to prove that they were liable for civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of the Courts Act, 1971.
2. The respondent no. 04 argued that he had withdrawn the resolution to conduct bundh and there is the absence of evidence to prove the disruption of the essential services on 1 October 2007 was caused by respondent no. 4.
3. The respondent no. 03 and 05 argued that the concerned ministry and secretary have made all the attempts to ensure the smooth functioning of the state transport corporation. They contended that the total revenue of the state trading corporation on 1 October 2007 was Rs. 4.83 crores. They further stated that the hunger strike of politicians cannot be treated as a piece of evidence for the civil contempt of respondent no. 03 and 05.
4. The respondent no. 06 argued that newspaper clippings and TV clippings cannot be treated as reliable evidence for holding him guilty of criminal contempt of the court. He further added that the petitioner failed to provide the primary evidence or original tape of the alleged speech made by respondent no. 06.

Judgement of the court

The Supreme Court decided that respondents no. 1 to no. 5 are not liable for civil contempt of the court and respondent no. 6 is not guilty of criminal contempt under the Contempt of the Courts Act, 1971. 

The Apex Court held that the arguments of the petitioner about the shutdown of the buses of the state transport corporation and preventing 45,000 buses from functioning cannot be taken into account, as respondent no. 01 and respondent no. 03 in their counter affidavit provided a detailed account that despite the efforts of respondents no. 01 and 03, many employees were on leave due to the continuous three-day holidays and the support of trade unions to the resolution passed to conduct bundh on 1 October 2007. Therefore, the court held that respondent no. 01 and no. 03 are not guilty of civil contempt of the Act.

The Supreme Court also rejected the claims of the petitioner that respondent no. 04 indirectly caused violence and had a role in the closure of transport services and business operations. The Apex Court held that bald statements cannot be taken into account on issues like violence and coercion. The Supreme Court also noted the fact that the petitioner failed to provide evidence.

The Apex Court refused to accept the “Xerox” copies of the newspapers because the petitioner did not attach the full facts of the meeting of political parties at the state guest house to the affidavit. The court held that the evidence provided by the petitioner was not legally admissible.

On a similar note, the court has considered the fact that respondent no. 5 has monitored the operations of all departments to ensure normal operation and therefore, the Supreme Court held that respondent no. 5 did not wilfully disobey the orders of the court.

Relevant judgements referred to in the case

Bharat Kumar K. Palicha and Anr vs. State of Kerala and Ors. (1997)

In this case, a petition is filed in the Kerala High Court seeking relief to declare bundh as illegal and unconstitutional. The petitioners contended that the bundh violates freedom of speech and expression, freedom to form an association under Article 19 and the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution by preventing them from carrying out their business activities. The Kerala High Court, while examining the term “bundh,” stated that the intention behind the call for holding a bundh is different from that of a strike or hartal. In bundh, the intention is the complete cessation of public or private activities. The court stated that this inference can be drawn from the fact that the newspapers, hospitals and the milk supply would excluded from the bundh. If they are not excluded, then these services would also come to a standstill. The High Court held that if the intention behind the bundh is to prevent the citizens from providing access to the above services and to prevent freedom of movement, it would lead to the negation of the fundamental rights of the citizens. The High Court further stated that though no announcement was made that people participating in bundhs would be attacked, the past incidents set a precedent that people involved in such bundhs would be attacked and their property may get destroyed. The court further added that the organisers of the bundh cannot forgo their liability by stating that they did not ask the public to do so because any reasonable man can foresee the consequences of the bundh. In view of the above observations, the Kerala High Court held that a call for holding a bundh is illegal and unconstitutional.

Communist Party of India (M) vs. Bharat Kumar (1997)

This case is an SLP against the judgement of the Kerala High Court in the case of Bharat Kumar K. Palicha and Anr. vs. the State of Kerala (1997), which decided the bundh to be illegal and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court agreed with the opinion of the Kerala High Court that there is a distinction between “bundh” and “hartal.” The court held that the fundamental rights of citizens cannot be submissive to the fundamental rights of a class of people or the claim of fundamental rights of an individual. The Apex Court further added that the bundh violates the fundamental rights of the citizens and can also be a threat to the interests of a nation. The Supreme Court agreed with the reasoning of the Kerala High Court and upheld the decision of the High Court, which stated that the bundh is illegal and unconstitutional.

Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India & Ors. (1983)

This case is a landmark judgement that reinforces the fundamental right against exploitation. The petitioner, a non-profit organisation dedicated to the release of bounded labourers, addressed a letter to the Supreme Court for the release of the labourers from the states of Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan working in the stone quarries in Faridabad district of Haryana near New Delhi. The petitioner stated that they were mostly bonded labourers and were made to work under inhuman and intolerable conditions. The court treated the letter as a writ petition. The Supreme Court held that every citizen of the nation has a fundamental right to live with human dignity, free from any form of exploitation, under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court further added that the individual derived from the directive principles of state policy- Article 39 clauses (e) and (f), which mention that the state is required to secure the health of workers and ensure youth have freedom and dignity and are protected from exploitation; Article 41, which directs the state to ensure the right to work and public assistance; and Article 42, which requires the state to maintain just and humane conditions of work. The court also held that even though Articles 39, 41 and 42 of the Constitution are not enforceable, the state that has already enacted legislation to ensure protection against exploitation must make sure to protect the right to live with human dignity as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.

Kameshwar Prasad vs. State of Bihar (1962)

This case is based on the constitutional validity of Rule 4A of the Bihar Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956, which prohibitted government servants from participating in any form of demonstration or strike with regard to any issues with their work. The petitioner, the president of the Patna Secretariat Ministerial Officers Association and assistants or clerks under the Bihar state government filed a writ petition before the High Court of Patna against the impugned rule and argued that Rule 4A violates Article 19 of the Constitution. However, the High Court dismissed the petition and then the petitioner filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. The Apex Court held that Rule 4 is unconstitutional to the extent that it prohibits demonstrations since it violates freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1) and freedom to peacefully assemble under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. However, the Apex Court held that the prohibition of the strike is valid under Rule 4A since there is no fundamental right to strike.

Critical analysis of the case

The judgement in AIADMK vs. the Chief Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu (2007) is a prime example of the Supreme Court being a guardian of the fundamental rights of the citizens. A call for holding a bundh can result in a restriction on freedom of movement and freedom to conduct business operations, which can result in monetary loss to those individuals who live based on daily wages. Often bundh can lead to the destruction of property, which can affect the functioning of both the government and the general public. Therefore, the author is of the opinion that holding a bundh is illegal and unconstitutional. 

Before the present case, the Apex Court in the case of the Communist Party of India (M) vs. Bharat Kumar (1997), has adjudicated that bundh is illegal and unconstitutional however, the court in this case reinforces it and also stated that no group, union or association, including a political party, can call for holding a bundh.

However, despite the Supreme Court’s judgement on this issue, we see violent bundhs being held and often incidents are overlooked by government functionaries due to political influence or negligence of officers. Therefore, there should be a system to ensure no bundhs are held.

Conclusion

We often consider bundhs as a demonstration by people to get the attention of the government to fulfil their needs, but we fail to notice the complete consequences of holding a bundh. Apart from the prohibition on communication and mobility, it can transpire into violence, leading to the destruction of property and grave injuries to the participants, which can sometimes lead to the death of innocent people. The political leaders or the organisers wash their hands of the liability, and ultimately, it is for an innocent man to suffer. Keeping all this in mind, the Apex Court in the case of AIADMK vs. the Chief Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu (2007) held the bundh as unconstitutional and illegal. 

Despite many Supreme Court rulings on the prohibition of bundh, many organisers are still issuing calls for bundh. Therefore, there is a need for legislation differentiating bundh and other forms of protest and strictly refraining from the call for holding a bundh.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the meaning of the term “bundh”?

There is no legislative definition of the term bundh; however, according to the general norms, bundh means the shutdown of transport facilities, communication facilities and business arenas to protest against the actions of the government or demand anything from the government by way of taking out a procession or any other way. 

In which case was bundh held unconstitutional?

The Supreme Court, for the first time in the case of Communist Party of India (M)  vs. Bharat Kumar (1997), held bundh organised by any union, association or political party to be illegal and unconstitutional.

How does a call for bundh violate Article 21 of the Constitution?

The bundh intrudes on the personal liberty of an individual and causes a threat to human life without the procedure established by the law, thereby causing a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.

What is the difference between bundh and strike?

A bundh is a protest which includes the complete shutdown of businesses, communication and transport services. A bundh is often characterised by the presence of violence. While, a strike is a peaceful demonstration by a class or group to express their concerns to the government.

References

• Constitutional Law of India, Central Law Agency, Dr. J. N. Pandey.
• https://supremoamicus.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Kaviya-Swaminathan-Kanishk-Shah.pdf
• https://www.jstor.org/stable/27768011
• https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/supami32&div=10&id=&page=
• https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/juscrp3&div=122&id=&page=