Right to Strike: A Legitimate Right
INTRODUCTION
When we think of protest, the idea typically evokes images of dissented minority taking a public stand, by the way of rallies which is usually associated with group of people who lacks inside connections with the wielders of power i.e. Politicians. Protest is often regarded as an attempt to question various Government’s policies or practice, which would otherwise go unquestioned.
Table of Contents
- Introduction
- History of public protests in India
- Constitutional provisions
- History of public protest in post- independence India
- Hunger strike at jantar mantar
- Began hunger strike at jantar mantar
- Protest at ramlila maidan by baba ramdev
- Ramlila maidan incident
- Supreme court on right to protest and right to strike
- New delhi’s seelampur violence
- Conclusion
“A protest is a public expression of objection, disapproval or dissent towards an idea or action of the Government.”
History of Public Protests in India
People in India have fought hard from the colonial period, have raised their voices and expressed their views on colonial policies and laws. They have dissented from those policies, shape minds and form public opinions, had spoken against the Government, challenged these policies and laws by holding large public meetings and by peaceful protests.
The result of these protests was that the people acted as providing feedback to the Government through meetings and discussions, which made the Government, recognize and rectify its mistakes.
Gandhiji started the first major protest in India back in 1894, when the Natal stripped all Indians of their ability to vote. Gandhiji organized protest through resistance and led large protests against the colonial government. Along the way, he developed a public persona and a philosophy of truth-focused, non-violent, non-cooperation movement called Satyagraha.
Constitutional Provisions
Right to protest has been enshrined in the constitution in Right to freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19(1)(a) and Right to assembly peacefully and without arms under Article 19(1)(b).
Therefore, it is clear that the framers of the constitution realize the importance of peaceful protest and provide it as a fundamental right in order to guide Government as and when necessary.
All the major democracies have peaceful protests as their right, to guide the Government and act as a system of checks and balance on their policies and laws. Absence of right to peaceful protest can result in arbitrary decisions in making policies and laws by the Government.
History of Public Protest in Post-Independence India
The first major peaceful protest in post-independence India took place in April 1973 in the village of Mandal, which is famously known as Chipko movement. The protest was against Government’s decision to allot a plot of forest area of Alakananda valley to a sports company. It was a non-violent movement, which majorly aimed at protection of trees and forests from being destroyed.
Hunger strike at Jantar Mantar
Between 1973 and 2011, the Government had to face many protests like Silent Valley Protest, Assam movement, Narmada Bachao Andolan, but the protest, which came into the limelight, was in 2011 that was led by Anna Hazare. He began hunger strike at Jantar Mantar on April 5, 2011. The main agenda of the protest was to persuade Government to enact a stringent anti-corruption law, which the Government later has to introduce through Lokpal Bill that premised the institution of ombudsman who has the power to deal with corruption in public places.
Protest at Ramlila Maidan by Baba Ramdev
Another major protest took place on June 5, 2011 at Ramlila Maidan led by Baba Ramdev and his supporters against corruption and prevalence of black money in India. This led to the landmark judgment given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlila Maidan Incident wherein it held that the essence of democracy is the right to have alternative or different opinion and to agitate for its acceptance.
Supreme Court on Right to Protest and Right to Strike
The Supreme Court in this case held the following points:
- Freedom of speech, right to assemble and demonstrate by holding peaceful protest or agitation are the basic features of the democratic system;
- The people of democratic country must have right to raise their voices against the action or decisions of the Government or even express their resentmentwhen the subject is of social or national importance;
- It is the duty of the Government to respect and encourage such rights;
- It is the duty of the state to aid exercise of right to freedom of speech and not to throttle exercise of such right by using its executive or legislative powers or taking action in the name of reasonable restriction.
However, violence has accompanied protest since India’s independence. India has mainly seen three kinds of violence since its independence viz. communal, electoral and entitlements. The early expressions of violence were of communal nature that saw 183 dead in Hatia Ranchi in 1967, but the worst communal rights occurred in 1984 also known as anti-sikh riots when Sikhs were attacked by armed men who targeted their shops and houses and resulted in 2733 deaths.
The most recent violent protests were against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 that turned protests into violent one. It is using political violence in a sense of perceived collective action and it is using degree of physical force to impose political goals.
New Delhi’s Seelampur became the hub of violence
with 21 people including 12 policeman and 6 civilians injured. Students from JNU as well as Jamia Millia Islamia joined the protest and as the movement gathers momentum, non-students joins the orgy of violence where public property was destroyed and lives were lost.
CONCLUSION
Protest is an integral part of any democracy and so is a part of Indian democracy as well, enshrined in the Constitution of India under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b). Moreover, in every democracy, not all will agree with the Government, there will always be some who will protest. Therefore, it is clear from the constitution that its framers kept that portion of dissenting people in mind and framed the constitution so as not to hinder democracy by providing the right to peaceful protest. However, the constitution only provides peaceful protest as a constitutional right, it nowhere supports violence, and neither do Supreme Court anywhere in its judgment support violent protest.
Nevertheless, violence always results in damage not only to public property but also to private property and life.
Whether in a violent protest damage is cause to private or public property, in a country like India, which is already resources starved, every such destruction will have a direct bearing on the way economic resources were to be mobilize through taxes.
Therefore, both the Centre and the States need to understand the new governance of silent citizens – the time for violent protests are behind us. As India steps into next decade, let us do so with the dictum for protestors; violence always has consequences.