FULL STOP: Shiv Sena activists block a railway track in Mumbai after the BEST bus blast in 2003

Why should we worry unduly? The court hasn’t given its decision yet,” said the BJP’s national vice-president Gopinath Munde off-handedly. Waiting at the Mumbai airport to receive former PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee on the eve of this week’s national executive conclave in the city, Munde seemed remarkably unconcerned about a public interest litigation (PIL) to be heard by Bombay High Court next week. But, the PIL may just rudely jerk the BJP and its political ally, the Shiv Sena, out of its nonchalance. After all, it is for the first time that someone has challenged the saffron combine over what they do best — stage bandhs to bring Mumbai to a grinding halt.

The PIL, filed by some of Mumbai’s most prominent citizens, challenges the legality of a political bandh organised in Mumbai last year and demands a Rs 50-crore compensation for the consequent crippling of the civil, industrial and financial activities in the city. Filed by former cabinet secretary B.G. Deshmukh, former director-general of police, Punjab, Julio Ribeiro, theatre director and ad man Alyque Padamsee and Gerson Da Cunha, convenor of Mumbai-based NGO Agni, the PIL argues that the two political parties violated the fundamental rights of Mumbai citizens by “forcing” a bandh.

The Shiv Sena-BJP had jointly given a call for a bandh on July 30, 2003, a day after a powerful bomb explosion killed and injured commuters in a BEST bus in Ghatkopar. The blast in the bus was one of the series of explosions that rocked Mumbai in 2003 including the twin blasts at the Gateway of India and Zaveri Bazaar in August. With its reputation as the more aggressive of the two parties, the Shiv Sena’s participation ensured that Mumbai shut itself down in anticipation of street violence.

The petition, admitted by Bombay High Court in November 2003, argues that the bandh call, given on July 29, 2003, amounted to direct and veiled threats that violence would follow if citizens did not obey it. On July 30, the parties carried out a “brazen, carefully plan- ned assault on the city and its citizens and their constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights to work and travel,” it states. The petition argues that the bandh was in violation of a 1997 Supreme Court judgment in which the apex court had termed bandhs illegal.

Using news reports published before and after the bandh, the petition argues that the bandh was “intimidatory and coercive in nature”, and also cites specific instances of coercion by political workers. The police department also failed to take proper and effective steps to stop and disperse political activists from disrupting city life, it states. The petition points out how only 554 employees out of 7042 reported work at state administrative headquarters, the Mantralaya, on the bandh day, and how 70,000 taxis and autos stayed off the roads fearing violence. The BEST operated only 621 buses out of its fleet of 1916, 40 of which were damaged in violence, it states.

The petition also tries to tabulate the losses to the tune of Rs 250 crore suffered by the organised and unorganised sector due to the 24-hour bandh. Citing the Supreme Court order, the petition states that the principle of ‘Ubi just ubi remedium (There is no wrong without a remedy)’ should be applied to the case and argues that merely terming the bandh “unconstitutional” would not provide a meaningful remedy.

Demanding that a Bandh Compensation Fund be created, the petition urges the court to direct the Sena-BJP to jointly pay a compensation of Rs 50 crore into this fund to redress the loss of wages and financial damages suffered by Mumbai’s citizens. The petition also asks the court to direct the police department to arrest and prosecute people who enforce such bandhs and order departmental action against police officers who do not take legal action against them.

The Bombay High Court division bench, comprising Chief Justice A.P. Shah and Justice S. U. Kamdar has directed the Shiv Sena-BJP to file their replies before a final hearing on June 30. If the judgment directs the parties to pay compensation, it could set a legal precedent which could affect the future of public protests by political parties everywhere — especially in Calcutta where political protests are the order of the day. “If the high court agrees with our viewpoint, the judgment can be applied to such coercive bandhs in other states as well,” said lawyer Jamshed Keki Mistry, who appeared for the petitioners.

But the two political parties are resolved to fight the issue to the finish. “Staging bandhs is a democratic right of the political parties, especially when something as serious as a bomb blast occurs. We will fight the issue legally,” said Munde, who joined Shiv Sena’s executive president Uddhav Thackeray in calling for last year’s bandh.

Shiv Sena’s legal counsel Balkrishna Joshi said the party will take a stand that the bandh was a spontaneous expression of protest by Mumbai’s citizens and was not coercive in nature. “The blast threatened the integrity of the country and killed innocent people. Every political party has the right to express protest over a national issue,” he said.

BJP’s counsel Bal Apte said, “The bona fides of the petitioners are in doubt. Bandhs were organised by Left parties as well, but the petitioners seemed to be aggrieved by this particular bandh. The petition relies on news reports, and the courts have ruled that news reports have no evidentiary value.”

Will Bombay High Court go along with all that? Public interest litigants — in not just Mumbai — can’t wait to find out.

Bandh Diary

1997: Supreme Court (SC) upholds a Kerala High Court order banning general strikes or bandh. In the same year, Supradip Sarkar, an advocate, files a PIL with the Calcutta High Court, challenging a bandh called by the All-India Trinamul Congress (AITC).

2002: AITC calls another bandh. This time, Idris Ali of the state minority forum, challenges Trinamul chief Mamata Banerjee for calling a bandh, demanding compensation. The Calcutta High Court, hearing the petition, says it is for the state administration to enforce the SC order.

2004: AITC calls for yet another bandh on February 3. Once again, Ali challenges the party for doing so. The Calcutta High Court refuses to admit the petition on the same grounds cited in the previous case.

Note: Several political parties, including the CPI(M), have appealed against the SC order. Their appeal is still pending before the apex court.