Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has been very retrogressive on the questions of strikes, demonstrations and bandhs. In the Tamil Nadu Services Case (2003) and the Uppal decision (2003), civil servants and lawyers were denied the right to strike. In another Kerala case (2004), the Supreme Court laid down that hartals, bandhs and strikes could not cause inconvenience to others or risk their life, liberty or property, including government or public property. This issue is pending in the Gurjjar matter before the Supreme Court.

A time honoured way is not to ban any form of non-coercive protest but simply subject it to ‘time and place’ constraints, but the constraints must not swallow up the right while respecting those of others.

The DMK bandh was an involuted form of protest. It is not very different from bandhs called by other political parties. Tested on the Kerala judgment, it would be difficult to distinguish it from a hartal or a general strike. Karunanidhi claimed that as a DMK leader, he was on hunger strike, but as chief minister, his administration did its best. What is he guilty of? The mere calling of a bandh (which he claims he didn’t) should not be held unconstitutional. The mere fact that it may cause inconvenience (to borrow the SC’s phrase) is not enough. Basic public services pertaining to health and the supply of goods must be maintained. But, a bandh must be respected as a form of social and political expression in a live democracy. It may be expensive to do so. But democracy does not come cheap.

... contd.