Karnataka bandh today: Is it legal to shut down a state?

Normalcy in Karnataka will be hit today as the southern state is witnessing another bandh. Pro-Kannada organisations have declared a day of shutdown in the state, opposing the release of Cauvery river water to neighbouring Tamil Nadu. Lives of the common man will be affected, as public transport as well as Ola and Uber drivers will stay off the roads; shops, eateries and theatres will also keep their shutters down, and schools and colleges have also declared a day off today in view of the strike. The state shutdown has been called by Kannada Okkuta, an umbrella organisation for Kannada outfits including factions of Karnataka Rakshana Vedike, Kannada Chalavali (Vatal Paksha) and various farmers’ bodies. The opposition Bharatiya Janata Party and Janata Dal(Secular) have also extended their support to the bandh. On the other hand, Karnataka deputy chief minister DK Shivakumar urged people not to participate in the bandh. “A bandh will not help. There could be law and order problem.” The bandh today (29 September) comes just three days after the state witnessed another one on 26 September, over the same reason – Cauvery river water-sharing . The two states are at loggerheads with one another following the Supreme Court’s decision not to intervene in the rulings of the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) and its auxiliary body, the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC). But as the bandh disrupts daily life, what is the constitutionality of it? Are they legal? Protests and bandhs in India The word bandh comes from the Sanskrit word meaning closure or shutdown. A means to protest, which results in an economic shutdown, bandhs have its origins in the Independence Movement during which hartals were used to wage war against imperial rule. The right to strike exudes from Article 19 (1) (c) of the Indian Constitution, which gives the citizens the fundamental right to form associations or unions. Article 19(1) (a) secures every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression. However, Article 19 of the Constitution doesn’t explicitly give any fundamental right on a resident or citizens to organise a hartal, bandhs or chakka jam. The Supreme Court has many times asserted that demonstrations can be considered a form of freedom of speech unless they violate the public order. [caption id=“attachment_13183092” align=“alignnone” width=“640”] The bandh on 29 September follows the one that took place on 26 September. Buses stand parked at Kalasipalya bus stand. File image/PTI[/caption] Legality of bandhs The constitutionality of bandhs is a confusing matter. Many relate the fundamental right to form associations and unions to carrying out bandhs. In 1961, the case of Kameshwar Prasad emerged as a major judgment on the right to strike by the Supreme Court. The apex court had then refused to declare right to strike as a fundamental right but also struck down a rule of government service that imposed blanket ban on any kind of demonstration by government servants. However, later in the All India Bank Employees Association case, the Supreme Court rejected the contention that right to ‘form associations’ guaranteed by Article 19(1)(c) carried with it a right to strike. In the case of TK Rangarajan v Government of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court had then stated that government employees cannot go on strike and that such an act is illegal. The judgment had read: “Coming to the question of right to strike – whether fundamental, statutory or equitable moral right – in our view, no such right exists with the government employees. Law on this subject is well settled and it has been repeatedly held by this court that the employees have no fundamental right to resort to strike.” Justice MB Shah had added in the order, “Apart from statutory rights, government employees cannot claim that they can take the society to ransom by going on strike. Even if there is injustice to some extent, as presumed by such employees, in a democratic welfare state, they have to resort to the machinery provided under different statutory provisions for redressal of their grievances. “Strike as a weapon is mostly misused which results in chaos and total maladministration. Strike affects the society as a whole and particularly when two lakh employees go on strike en masse, the entire administration comes to a grinding halt. In the case of strike by a teacher, entire educational system suffers; many students are prevented from appearing in their exams, which ultimately affect their whole career. In case of strike by doctors, innocent patients suffer; in case of strike by employees of transport services, entire movement of society comes to a standstill; business is adversely affected and number of persons find it difficult to attend to their work, to move from one place to another or one city to another. On occasions, public properties are destroyed or damaged and finally this creates bitterness among public against those who are on strike.” Previously in 1997, a full bench of the Kerala High Court had banned bandhs, which had been vehemently opposed by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and its partners in the Kerala government. The court had also held that organisers of the bandhs are liable to compensate the Government, the public and private citizens for any losses they suffer on account of destruction of property during the bandhs. The Supreme Court also upheld the order banning bandhs later that year. Bandh organisers eventually started calling strikes hartals instead. The Supreme Court in 2004 stated that inconvenience could not be caused in the name of hartal either. But, confusion continues over the constitutionality of a bandh as the courts haven’t clarified the difference between a strike, bandh and hartal. However, in 2017, the apex court took a differing stand on the issue. A bench of Chief Justice JS Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud had noted in a case that “hartals could never be considered unconstitutional”. “The Right to Protest is a valuable constitutional right. How can we say hartals are unconstitutional,” they had said. In 2019, the matter was once again raised in court and this time, the Gauhati High Court ruled against bandhs and blockades declaring them illegal and unconstitutional. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan in his judgment had said that organisers of such blockades are liable to be prosecuted under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code 1860, National Highways Act 1956 and the Railways Act 1989. [caption id=“attachment_13183102” align=“alignnone” width=“640”] The bandh will affect transport services across the state. The bandh has support from various quarters. PTI[/caption] Karnataka bandh today Irrespective of the legal status of bandhs in India, Karnataka is witnessing one today on the issue of the Cauvery river water. Travel and transport will be affected by the bandh and so will colleges and educational institutions. Employees at private companies have also been asked to work from home today in light of the bandh in the state. However, the state machinery has said that essential services including hospitals, government offices and banks will operate as per usual. Namma Metro services will also function as per usual. While flight operations will continue as usual, Kempegowda International Airport authorities have issued an advisory in anticipation of potential disruptions in transport services due to the one-day Karnataka bandh. Flyers have also been urged to stay informed by following alerts from their respective airlines, law enforcement agencies, and media releases for any further updates. And as the bandh started in the state, the Bengaluru Police detained over 50 members of pro-Kannada organisations near Karnataka’s Attibele town. With inputs from agencies