What does the Constitution say about Bandhs?
Farmers protesting against the new farm laws have called for a Bharat Bandh tomorrow. Are such strikes lawful?
The dictionary defines a bandh as ‘a general strike.’ It is used as a form of protest, especially when the government refuses to pay heed to the demands of a particular group.
Bandhs are controversial. On one hand, they are used as a last resort against victimization and bureaucratic apathy. On the other, they affect the functioning of the country at large, bringing the economy, businesses, and lives to a standstill.
The reason we’re bringing this up is because there might be a Bharat Bandh tomorrow. Farmers opposing the controversial farm legislations have called for a nationwide strike. Several Opposition parties, including the Congress, AAP, and Shiv Sena, have backed the protesting farmers.
Today’s story explains what the law says about this.
Weapon for the Minority
India is no stranger to general strikes. In the last few years, Bharat Bandhs have been called against privatization of public sector undertakings, increase in fuel prices, and the Supreme Court’s judgement on reservations in public posts. Some of these were called by trade unions and collectives; others by political parties.
Let’s understand the rationale behind tomorrow’s Bharat Bandh.
Farmers have been protesting against the new farm laws for over 10 days. They have gathered in several regions around Delhi and even endured police attacks. Their demands are clear – repeal the three laws that threaten India’s food security system and their livelihood.
All this time, the Central government has refused to budge. The Minister of State for Agriculture has said that the laws will not be repealed. If necessary, the government may only consider amending them.
The Constitution on Bandhs
The clearest judicial ruling on the legality of general strikes comes from the Kerala High Court. In Bharat Kumar v. State of Kerala, the court held that calling and holding a bandh was unconstitutional. It stated – “No political party or organisation can claim that it is entitled to paralyse the industry and commerce in the entire state or Nation and is entitled to prevent the citizens… from exercising their fundamental rights or from performing their duties.”
This decision was subsequently approved by the Supreme Court.
It’s easy to understand why the court ruled this way. People in India have various fundamental rights – whether that’s the right to move freely in the country or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. A forced bandh impinges upon these freedoms and is, therefore, unconstitutional.
After all, the fundamental rights of the general public cannot become subservient to the rights of a protesting group.
Widespread Support
If you observe closely, you’ll notice that the courts’ problem is with bandhs that are enforced upon the public. Voluntary strikes aren’t an issue. The distinction between a forced bandh and a strike that people join willingly is clear – in case of the latter, the public is choosing not to exercise its fundamental rights.
The farmers protesting in North India aren’t forcing anyone to go on a strike. Their bandh is being voluntarily supported by different sections of society, whether that’s artists like Diljit Dosanjh or the Bar Council of India. There’s nothing unconstitutional about people shutting industries and petrol pumps by choice in solidarity.
Will this make the government break? That’s tough to say. But the farmers are definitely giving it everything they have.
Stay WorldWise!
We’ve created a Law Firm Playbook that busts myths and provides no fluff guidance on working at top tier law firms. This comes from our experience of working at such firms and speaking to dozens of other lawyers.