[Assam] Only in Desi-demokrasy!

[Chan Mahanta]

This is a pretty bizarre interpretation of 'democratic rights".

Obviously their lordships are acutely aware of the fact that ordinary 
conflict resolution  systems are dysfunctional, thus allowing what 
should  be the last resort , the first resort in desi-demokrasy.

It will be a lot of fun watching this now!

cm





 From ToI:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/


SC does a U-turn, says bandhs OK in democracy
4 Feb 2009, 0220 hrs IST, Dhananjay Mahapatra, TNN

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.

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.