'Bound To Cause Hindrance': Karnataka High Court Rejects Trade Unions' Plea For Holding Procession On International Labour Day
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday refused permission to a batch of trade unions seeking to hold a peaceful procession in the capital on International Labour Day, i.e. on May 1. A vacation bench of Justice R Devdas and Justice K S Hemalekha said, "This court is of considered opinion that there is a clear direction passed in order dated 3-3-2022 that the state government...
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday refused permission to a batch of trade unions seeking to hold a peaceful procession in the capital on International Labour Day, i.e. on May 1.
A vacation bench of Justice R Devdas and Justice K S Hemalekha said,
"This court is of considered opinion that there is a clear direction passed in order dated 3-3-2022 that the state government authorities will ensure that no protest/procession are held in the entire city of Bengaluru, except freedom park."
A batch of trade unions including the All India Trade Union Congress and others had approached the court challenging an endorsement issued by the jurisdictional police, denying permission to the applicants to take out a procession from City railway station to Freedom park and Town hall to Freedom park, while pointing out to orders passed by the High Court's order, directing the state government and police authorities to ensure that no protest/procession are held in entire city of Bengaluru, except at freedom park.
The counsel appearing for the Unions informed the court that on May 1, it is Labour day, and the members of the applicant unions intend to take out a peaceful procession from City railway station to Freedom park and from Town hall to Freedom Park, to hold a meeting at Freedom park.
Further it was said that subsequent to the order dated 3-03-2022, the High Court passed certain orders on 13-04-2022 permitting to takeout procession in view of the Karaga festival. Therefore, directions were sought upon the jurisdictional police to permit the applicant/unions and its members to take out a peaceful procession and hold a meeting at freedom park.
Moreover, it was said members of the applicant/unions will undertake to hold a peaceful procession and cooperate with the police and ensure compliance of orders passed by this court.
The government advocate on the other hand contended that the directions contained in the order dated 3-03-2022 are very clear. So far as permission granted for Karaga festival are concerned, he summited that a procession held in the night on a particular day of the year cannot be compared to a procession which is sought to be taken out on Labour day.
Following which the bench said,
"As rightly submitted by the additional government advocate the procession being taken out on Labour day, is from two sides namely–City railway station and Town hall, to the Freedom Park, would be in broad daylight and it is bound to cause hindrance to the general public."
Further it said, "The procession sought to be carried cannot be compared with the Karaga festival."
It added, "Nevertheless, if the members of the unions who would assemble at railway station and town hall, want to walk to the freedom park, there is no need for them to seek permission either from this court or from the police authorities. The police authorities are right in pointing to the orders passed by this court, which has directed to ensure that no such procession is held on the streets of Bengaluru. Therefore, the request made by applicant unions to take out procession cannot be acceded. Nevertheless, if the members of the applicant union want to assemble at freedom park and hold a meeting it can be permitted in view of the express direction of this court in its order dated March 3."
After pronouncing the order the court orally said, "We make it clear that we have not permitted carrying out procession. It is clarified that no permission for holding a procession will be granted." Accordingly, it disposed of the applications.
Case Title: Suo-Motu v. The State Of Karnataka
Case No: WP 5781/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 142