Demonstration and Bundh
Demonstration means “Mass Meeting’’. Demonstration may be in two type violence an peaceful. Only peaceful picketing fell within Article 19(1) (a)
Kameshwar Prasad vs. state of Bihar
A rule made by the Bihar Govt. prohibited govt. servant from participating in any demonstration or strike in connection with their service.
Kameshwar Prasad challenge this rule demonstration is a visible manifestation of the feeling of individual or group and through this a communication one’s ideas to other transfer. Therefore this violation of Article 19(1)(a).
Supreme Court held that this rule is unconstitutional. Government cannot banned every type of demonstration , only demonstration banned which breach publish tranquility and fall under Article 19(2) , this right is not bad for strike because there is no any FR which resort to strike.
- The expression “hartal’’ (this word is originate from India) which means a temporary cessation of commercial acuity especially as type of organized passive resistance. A hartal unaccompanied by violence or coercion can be understood to be a legitimate form of protest or significance of mourning in the wake of tragedy, national or local.
- The moment it comes out of the concept of hartal strictly so called and seeks to unpins on the rights of other it cease to be hartal and really becomes a violent demonstration affecting the right of other then it would amount to be constitutional act.
- A boycott is simply speaking is refusal to work and means to combine in refusing to work for or deal with it, in order to intimidate or refuse to buy from or use the service of and if it is unaccompanied violence then it is legal.
No one has right to call for blockade of the office o local authority in exercise of their right of free movement
Bundh are legitimate form of political protest against governmental inaction or studied silence or refusal to concede even the just demand of the people
Bharat kumar vs. state of Kerala
Bharat kumar agree that, those who says that they have right to bundh according to Article 19(because of right to expression) but what about our violation Article 21 that is right to duty and they also contrance DPSP and Fundamental duties which enumerated in the constitution
Kerala high court held that the calling for a bundh by any association, organization and political parties and it enforcement is illegal and unconstitutional
The court also took the view that the organization which call for such bundh and enforce them are liable to compensate the government, public and private citizen for loss suffered by them due to resulting destruction of private and public distribution
Communist party of India vs. Bharat kumar
Communist party of India argued that the calling of Bundh is spontaneous expression
Supreme court dismissed the appeal of CPI and deny to interfere with the Kerala High Court decision
Supreme court upheld that reasoning of the high court was sound,that no interference of their part was necessary .