Manashimaya
On Friday, August 23, 2024, the Bombay High Court made a significant move by calling off the Maharashtra Bandh, which had been declared for August 24 by the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA). This bandh was called in protest of the growing number of crimes against women and the sexual assault of two four-year-old girls at a Badlapur school. The planned bandh has, however, come to an abrupt halt due to the court’s intervention, underscoring the judiciary’s vital role in defending the rights and welfare of the public.
In response to two Public Interest Litigations (PILs) that challenged the legitimacy of the bandh, the Bombay High Court issued a restraining order against the Maha Vikas Aghadi, particularly the faction led by Uddhav Thackeray. The order explicitly stated that all concerned parties are barred from proceeding with the call for the Maharashtra Bandh on 24th August 2024, or any other subsequent date. This ruling has significant implications, as it emphasises the court’s stance on maintaining public order and preventing disruptions that could adversely affect the state.
The decision to block the Maharashtra Bandh called by Maha Vikas Aghadi on 24th August was rooted in concerns over potential disruptions to essential services. The petitioners argued that the bandh could disrupt the supply of milk, newspaper distribution, and access to hospitals, thereby infringing on the fundamental rights of citizens. The court, while agreeing with these concerns, referred to its previous ruling in the BG Deshmukh case, where it had declared the enforcement of a bandh as an “unconstitutional act.” This precedent played a pivotal role in the court’s decision to block the bandh, reinforcing the importance of upholding constitutional principles.
Advocates representing the petitioners highlighted the political motivations behind the Maharashtra Bandh called by Maha Vikas Aghadi on 24th August. Advocate Gunratan Sadavarte argued that the bandh was politically driven and would ultimately harm public welfare rather than serve the intended purpose of seeking justice for the victims. The court’s order serves as a reminder that while protests are a legitimate form of expression, they should not come at the cost of public safety and welfare.
The State, represented by Advocate General Birendra Saraf, assured the court that all necessary measures would be taken to prevent any harm to life and property during this period. Saraf emphasised that while the State must maintain law and order, political parties and organisers of such bandhs also have constitutional responsibilities that they must uphold. This balanced approach underscores the importance of collaboration between the State and the judiciary in addressing issues of public concern.
In conclusion, the Bombay High Court’s ruling to prevent the Maharashtra Bandh, which Maha Vikas Aghadi had called for on August 24, underscores the judiciary’s vital role in safeguarding the public interest and maintaining constitutional values. The decision is a crucial reminder that, even if protests are a necessary component of democracy, they must be carried out in a way that respects the rights and welfare of others. The court’s intervention guarantees that justice and the welfare of Maharashtra’s citizens are at the forefront as the state navigates these difficult times.
