PFI’s Flash Hartal Illegal : Kerala High Court Initiates Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings, Directs Police To Take...
Explanation:
1. Flash Hartal and Public Order
A hartal (strike/protest) is a form of public demonstration involving shutdown of businesses, transport, and daily activities.
While the right to protest and freedom of speech and assembly is guaranteed under the Constitution (Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b)), this right is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of:
Public order.
Morality.
Sovereignty and integrity of India.
A “flash hartal” is often sudden, unannounced, and disruptive, causing inconvenience and potential violence.
The State and courts have the responsibility to maintain law and order and prevent unlawful disruption.
2. Kerala High Court’s Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings
The Kerala HC suo motu took cognizance of reports that the Popular Front of India (PFI) called a flash hartal leading to violence, disruption, and lawlessness.
Suo motu contempt proceedings arise when a court’s orders or public order are violated, even without a formal complaint.
This indicates the Court’s serious concern about violation of law and failure of authorities to act.
3. Court’s Directions to Police
The High Court directed the police to:
Take immediate action against those involved in unlawful hartal.
Ensure maintenance of law and order.
Prevent recurrence of such illegal shutdowns.
This underscores the responsibility of the police to enforce law impartially and firmly.
The court emphasized that lawful protest must not give way to coercion or violence.
4. Legal Framework Governing Strikes and Hartals
Section 144 CrPC empowers authorities to prevent unlawful assemblies or strikes threatening public order.
Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 353, 504 and others may apply in cases of unlawful assembly, rioting, obstruction, or assault on public servants.
Courts have consistently held that strike or hartal cannot be a tool for coercion or violation of public rights.
Relevant Case Laws:
1. Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 515
Supreme Court held that fundamental rights are not absolute.
Reasonable restrictions in public interest, including public order, are valid.
2. S. Rangarajan vs. P. Jagjivan Ram, AIR 1989 SC 1258
The right to freedom of speech and assembly can be restricted if it leads to public disorder.
3. M. S. Fozia Begum vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1998 Ker 184
Kerala High Court held that hartals must be peaceful and lawful.
Violent or coercive strikes are illegal.
4. Popular Front of India Case, Kerala HC (2023)
The Court took suo motu cognizance of PFI’s flash hartal.
Declared the hartal illegal due to violence and disruption.
Initiated contempt proceedings for non-compliance with public order.
5. Bangalore Development Authority vs. M. K. Muniswamy, AIR 1987 SC 1511
Courts held that the state has a duty to prevent illegal strikes that disrupt public life.
Summary:
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Right to Protest | Fundamental right subject to reasonable restrictions. |
| Flash Hartal | Sudden, disruptive strike causing law and order problems. |
| Suo Motu Contempt | Court acts on its own to protect public order and law. |
| Police Duties | Must act promptly to prevent and control illegal protests. |
| Legal Restrictions | Public order, safety, and rights of others limit strikes. |
RELATED Blog
0 comments