The Bombay High Court on Friday (August 23, 2024) passed a restraining order on the Opposition Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) and individuals from organising a statewide strike in Maharashtra on August 24 or any future date. The strike was called by the MVA -- comprising the Congress, NCP (Sharadchandra Pawar) and the Shiv Sena (UBT) -- against the sexual assault of two kindergarten girls at a school in Thane district’s Badlapur region.
Following the order, the MVA withdrew the strike, with Sharad Pawar saying, “The Indian judiciary is a constitutional body and in respect of the order given, the bandh call should be withdrawn.”
Two public interest litigations were filed through advocates Subhash Jha and Gunaratan Sadavarte in the High Court seeking denial of permission to the MVA to hold the strike and declare it “illegal” and “unconstitutional”.
Pronouncing the order orally, a division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar said, “Until further orders, all concerned political parties and individuals are restrained from proceeding with the call for bandh on August 24 or any subsequent date in the future.”
After the court order, the Mumbai Police issued notices to the MVA leaders saying strict action will be taken against anyone who violated the order. To maintain peace in the city, the police deployed security.
Mr. Pawar said the strike “was an attempt to draw the government’s attention” to the Badlapur incident. “This bandh was within the purview of the Fundamental Rights. However, the Bombay High Court has ruled that the bandh is unconstitutional. Due to time constraint, it is not possible to appeal in the Supreme Court against the order.”
Shiv Sena (UBT) chief Uddhav Thackeray said though the party “did not accept and agree with the Bombay High Court’s order, it respects” the ruling. Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee chief Nana Patole said their party would protest peacefully against the government with black flags.
The Bench directed the Maharashtra government to strictly enforce its order, take preventive steps to make sure no strike is observed. Any bandh would amount to an unconstitutional act, the Bench said, relying on a July 2004 High Court order. The State government, Chief Secretary, Additional Chief Secretary (Home), the Director General of Police and all district collectors must enforce the 2004 judgement, the Bench said. The old judgement mentions that if political parties do not obey the court’s order, they will face legal consequences and will have to compensate for any loss of life, property or livelihood. The police shall take appropriate action against those involved in the strike, the order said.
The petitioners relied on the 1997 case of Bharat Kumar K. Palicha versus the Kerala government where a full Bench of the Kerala High Court held that calling of a bandh by political parties was unconstitutional and illegal and those political parties are liable to pay compensation to the government and private citizens for the losses suffered.
Advocate General Birendra Saraf said, “The State government will take all steps to ensure there is no damage or destruction to human lives or property. The State will do its duty, but everyone has constitutional responsibilities which they should abide by.”
Mr. Jha, for the petitioners, cited examples from the Maratha reservation protests and how it had impacted the State’s harmony. The counsels questioned the need to call a strike when an SIT has been constituted in the case and the High Court has taken suo-moto cognisance. The counsels presented the impact of protests on regular life, such as disruption in train services, loss of public property due to stone-pelting in the Badlapur incident.
