Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.24 seconds)
Dr. P.G. Najpande vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 7 December, 2007 cites

Kameshwar Prasad And Others vs The State Of Bihar And Another on 22 February, 1962

13. It is argued on behalf of the respondents that a bandh could be peaceful or violent and even if the Court were to act, it could act only to curtail violent bandhs and not peaceful bandhs. It is contended that the Court cannot presume or generalise that the calling of a bandh always entails actual violence or that the threat of violence in not participating in or acquiescing in the bandh. The decision in Karneshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar is referred to in that, context. This theoretical aspects expounded by counsel for the respondents does not appeal to us especially since as understood In our country and certainly in our State, the calling for a bandh is clearly different from a call for a general strike or a hartal. We have already noticed that a call for a bandh holds out a warning to the citizen that if he were to go out for his work or to open his shop, he would be prevented and his attempt to take his vehicle on to the road will also be dealt with. It is true that theoretically it is for the State to control any possible violence or to ensure that a bandh is not accompanied by violence. But our present set up, the reluctance and sometimes the political subservience of the law-enforcing agencies and the absence of political will exhibited by those in power at the relevant time, has really led to a situation where there is no effective attempt made by the law-enforcing agencies either to prevent violence or to ensure that those citizens who do not want to participate in the bandh are given the opportunity to exercise their right to work, their right to trade or their right to study. We cannot also ignore the increasing frequency in the calling, holding and enforcing of the bandhs in the State and the destruction of public and private property. In the face of this reality, we think that when we consider the impact of a bandh on the freedom of a citizen, we are not merely theorising but are only taking note of what happens around us when a bandh is called and a citizen attempts either to defy it or seeks to ignore it. We are not in a position to agree with counsel for the respondents that there are no sufficient allegations either in O.P. 7551 of 1994 or in O.P. 12469 of 1995 which would enable us to come to such a conclusion. In fact, the uncontroverted allegations in O. P. 12469 of 1995 are specific and are also supported by some newspaper clippings which though could not be relied on as primary material, could be taken note of as supporting material for the allegations in the Original Petition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 147 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document

T.K. Rangarajan vs Government Of Tamil Nadu & Others on 6 August, 2003

In T.K. Rangarajan AIR 2003 SC 3032 (supra) a two-Judge Bench of the Apex Court while dealing with the provisions of rights of the Government employees to go on strike expressed its opinion that there is no legal or statutory right to go on strike and that there is no moral or equitable justification to go on strike. We are conscious that the said decision was rendered in the context of Government employees but it has its own signification.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 94 - Full Document
1