SC does a U-turn, says bandhs OK in democracy

Judiciary too seems to change their minds every few years!! I wonder what made CJI KG Balakrishnan change his own verdict? Is it because he is Tamilian? or is it that he saw his earlier verdict was anti People? or is it that a better lawyer argued this time? or maybe the judgement of Kerala HC was misread by the Supreme Court and other HCs? But whatever it may be OSOA and all PSUs can now use this in their legitimate right to strike.

The news Item:-

Quote

NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Tuesday termed bandhs as legitimate means of expressing people's feelings in a democracy, reversing a trend judiciary has followed since 1997 when it had come down hard upon political parties for causing inconvenience to the public by forcing shutdowns.

The volte face, which will be celebrated by a political class which had chaffed at judiciary's opposition to chakka jams, came when the court refused to ban the Chennai bandh called for Wednesday to protest against the killings of civilians in Sri Lanka's military campaign against LTTE.

The stark change of stand looked even more so because of the fact that the fresh position was outlined by a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan. In 1997, the CJI was part of the Kerala High Court Bench which gave the landmark anti-bandh judgment. The judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court, setting the stage for similar rulings from other HCs.

The court scheduled a hearing on the petition against the bandh only for February 16.

On Tuesday, the Bench headed by CJI and comprising Justices P Sathasivam and J M Panchal observed that in a democratic country, everyone had the right to express their feelings: a remark that would be lapped up by political parties who never acquiesced to judiciary's stand against bandhs.

The Bench was unmoved when Ajit Puduserry, appearing for petitioner J Satish Kumar, invoked the 1997 verdict of the Supreme Court.

Pudussery argued that the bandh call given by an umbrella organisation of political parties -- Sri Lankan Tamils' Protection Movement -- was a violation of the order that the apex court gave upholding the Kerala HC's slamming of bandhs.

The line did not work. "What has this court to do with stopping strikes? India is a democratic state where everyone has a right to express their feelings," retorted the Bench. (my Comments-- WAH WAH! Where was this WISDOM WHEN YOU GUYS BANNED OSOA STRIKE? What made you change now? Delhi HC are you listening? OSOA and PSUs should Immediately file writs in the Delhi Courts for withdrawals of all court cases in view of this judgement!)

The clock, clearly, has come full circle. In the 1997 judgment, the HC had said, "No political party or organisation can claim that it is entitled to paralyse industry and commerce in the entire state or nation and is entitled to prevent the citizens not in sympathy with its viewpoint from exercising their fundamental right or from performing their duties for their own benefits or for the benefit of the state or the nation."

It added, "Such a claim would be unreasonable and could not be accepted as a legitimate exercise of a fundamental right by a political party or those comprising it." The order had met with thunderous applause from millions across the country. CJI part of bench that barred bandhs in 1997.

NEW DELHI: Reversing a trend judiciary has followed since 1997 when it had come down hard on forced shutdowns, the Supreme Court on Tuesday termed bandhs as a legitimate means of expressing people’s feelings in a democracy.

In 1997, the CJI was part of the Kerala HC bench which gave the landmark anti-bandh judgment. The judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court, setting the stage for similar rulings from other HCs. The court scheduled a hearing on the petition against the bandh only for February 16.

On Tuesday, the bench headed by CJI and comprising Justices P Sathasivam and J M Panchal observed that in a democratic country, everyone had the right to express their feelings: a remark that would be lapped up by political parties who never acquiesced to judiciary’s stand against bandhs. The bench was unmoved when Ajit Puduserry, appearing for petitioner J Satish Kumar, invoked the 1997 verdict of the Supreme Court.

Endquote

I also feel that in India EVERYTHING Stinks!! I think the petition to Bring in Judicial Reforms is very much apt because even the judges do not seem to be thinking / acting properly. My earlier post here tried to highlight that everything is inter-related and if we need to see a brighter future we need to change everything. One does need to start somewhere. So somebody thought of starting with Judiciary Reforms and started an online Petition here. But I say let us change everything paralelly.