Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA (M) versus BHARAT KUMAR AND ORS.

Decided
12 November 1997
Judges listed
J.S. VERMA, B.N. KIRPAL, V.N. KHARE (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 131 · 1997 INSC 726
Also cited as
  • (1998) 1 SCC 201 (12 citing judgments)
  • AIR 1998 SC 184 (4 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 5 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted.

p. 131, margin G

We have heard Mr. Harish Salve and Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Mathai M. Paideday, learned counsel for the respondents.

p. 131, margin G

On a perusal of the impugned judgement of the High Court, referring to which learned counsel for the appellant pointed out certain portions, particularly in paras Band 18 including the operative part in support of their submissions, we find that the judgment does not call for any interference. are satisfied that the distinction drawn by the High Court between a "Bandh" and a call for general strike or "Hartal" is well made out with reference to effect ofa "Bandh" on the fundamental rights of other citizens. There cannot be any doubt that the fundamental rights of the people as a whole cannot be subservient to the claim of fundamental right of an individual or only section of the people. It is on the basis of this distinction that the High Court has rightly concluded that there cannot be any right to ca11 or enforce "Bandh" which interferes with the exercise of the fundamental freedoms other citizens, in addition to causing national loss in many ways. We may also add that the reasoning given by the High Court, particularly those paragraphs 12, 13 and 17 for the ultimate conclusion and directions in paragraph 18 is correct with which we are in agreement. We may also observe that High Court has drawn a very appropriate distinction between a "Bandh" the one hand and a call for general strike or "Hartal" on the other. We in agreement with the view taken by the High Court.

p. 132, margin A

The appeals are dismissed accordingly. No costs. T.N.A. Appeals dismissed.

p. 132, margin D