Constitutional Law – Fundamental Rights – Hartals and General Strikes – Flash hartal called by Popular Front of India (PFI) on September 23, 2022, without seven days’ public notice declared illegal and unconstitutional, violating court’s 2019 order.
Strict Liability – PFI and its State General Secretary held liable for damages caused to public and private property during hartal, based on Supreme Court precedents.
Claims Commissioner – Damages quantified at Rs.3,94,97,445.26, including Rs.3,84,24,684.26 for KSRTC and Rs.10,72,761 for private property and injuries.
Revenue Recovery – Court directed State Government to recover compensation by selling attached properties, prioritizing PFI’s assets and those of its office bearers in descending order of hierarchy within six weeks.
Interim Directions – Attachments on unneeded properties to be lifted; writ petitions disposed with liberty to file fresh petitions if attachments persist.
State’s Duty – Criticized State’s delay in recovery and support for Claims Commissioner, emphasizing rule of law over mob violence.
Articles 19(1)(a), 21, and 51-A of Constitution discussed.
Mazdoor Kisan Shakthi Sangathan v. Union of India (AIR 2018 SC 3476) and In Re: Destruction of Public & Private Properties v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2009) 5 SCC 212] relied upon.
Case Numbers : W.P.(C).Nos.222 & 244 of 2019 and Connected Cases
W.P.(C).NOS.6752, 7355, 7842, 9339, 9690, 10142, 10666, 10869, 11090, 11104, 11453, 12642, 12834, 12924, 13453, 13671, 16325, 16375, 16595, 16793, 16830, 16869, 17368, 17475, 17873, 18157, 18208, 18275, 18313, 18350, 18358, 18415, 18577, 18586, 18711, 18815, 18966, 18967, 19107, 19375, 19949, 19983, 20994, 21536, 21551, 23502, 23716, 23874, 26562, 42358, 43873 & 44089 OF 2023 & 548, 926, 11815, 12263, 12273, 13522 & 15912 OF 2024
Case Citation: 2025:KER:31013
Court: High Court of Kerala
Judges: Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. and Mohammed Nias C.P., J.
Date of Judgment: April 10, 2025
Parties:
- Petitioners: Various individuals and entities challenging hartal-related actions.
- Respondents: Popular Front of India (PFI), its State General Secretary A. Abdul Sathar, State Government of Kerala, and others.
Facts:
- The case arose from writ petitions challenging the legality of hartals and general strikes in Kerala, particularly a flash hartal called by the Popular Front of India (PFI) on September 23, 2022, without adhering to a prior court order requiring seven days’ public notice.
- On January 7, 2019, the court had issued an interim order declaring that hartals called without seven days’ notice are illegal and unconstitutional, citing the implied threat of violence and disruption to public life.
- The PFI’s flash hartal led to widespread violence and damage to public and private property, including KSRTC buses. The court initiated contempt proceedings against PFI and its State General Secretary for violating the 2019 order.
- The court directed the State Government to recover damages, initially estimated at Rs.5.20 crores, from PFI and its office bearers through revenue recovery proceedings. A Claims Commissioner was appointed to quantify the actual damages.
- The Claims Commissioner’s final report assessed damages at Rs.3,94,97,445.26, including Rs.3,84,24,684.26 for KSRTC and Rs.10,72,761 for private property and personal injuries.
Issues:
- Whether the flash hartal called by PFI on September 23, 2022, was illegal and unconstitutional.
- Whether PFI and its office bearers were liable for damages caused during the hartal.
- How to recover the quantified compensation from the attached properties of PFI and its office bearers.
- Whether the State Government complied with court orders regarding revenue recovery and support for the Claims Commissioner.
Holding:
- The court held that the PFI’s flash hartal was illegal and unconstitutional for failing to provide the mandated seven days’ public notice, violating the court’s 2019 order.
- PFI and its State General Secretary were held strictly liable for damages caused during the hartal, based on Supreme Court precedents and the court’s prior orders.
- The court accepted the Claims Commissioner’s quantification of damages at Rs.3,94,97,445.26 and directed the State Government to recover this amount by selling attached properties, prioritizing those owned by PFI and its higher-level office bearers.
- The court disposed of most writ petitions (except W.P.(C).Nos.222 and 244 of 2019) with interim directions to release attachments on properties not needed for recovery, while allowing petitioners to file fresh petitions if their properties remained attached.
Reasoning:
- Illegality of Flash Hartal: The court reiterated its 2019 order, which balanced the right to call a peaceful hartal (Article 19(1)(a)) against the public’s fundamental rights to free movement and livelihood (Article 21). Flash hartals, lacking sufficient notice, disrupt public life and carry implied threats of violence, rendering them unconstitutional.
- Liability of PFI: Citing Supreme Court cases like In Re: Destruction of Public & Private Properties v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2009) 5 SCC 212], the court held PFI directly responsible for damages due to its illegal call for the hartal, dismissing arguments about lack of prior notice as the deposit was provisional and subject to final adjudication.
- Recovery Mechanism: To ensure fair recovery, the court established a hierarchy for selling attached properties, starting with PFI’s assets, followed by those of its national, state, district, and local office bearers. This prevented arbitrary selection by the State and protected unrelated parties whose properties were mistakenly attached.
- State’s Compliance: The court criticized the State Government’s delays in revenue recovery and inadequate support for the Claims Commissioner, issuing strict timelines and clarifying that procedural notices under the Revenue Recovery Act were unnecessary given the respondents’ default.
Disposition:
- Interim Directions (W.P.(C).Nos.222 and 244 of 2019):
- The State Government to identify properties to recover Rs.3,94,97,445.26 within six weeks.
- Properties to be prioritized in the order: PFI, national office bearers, state office bearers, district office bearers, local office bearers.
- Properties sufficient for recovery to be sold; remaining attachments to be lifted with notice to owners.
- Final Directions (Other Writ Petitions):
- Disposed with liberty to petitioners to file fresh petitions if their properties remain attached after the recovery process.
- The court emphasized the rule of law, condemning mob violence and affirming citizens’ fundamental rights over disruptive actions by organized groups.
Key Precedents Cited:
- Mazdoor Kisan Shakthi Sangathan v. Union of India (AIR 2018 SC 3476)
- In Re: Destruction of Public & Private Properties v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2009) 5 SCC 212]
- Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India [2018 KHC 6513]
- Kodungallur Film Society v. Union of India [2018 (5) KHC 297]
Significance: This judgment reinforces judicial oversight over disruptive protests, establishes strict liability for organizers of illegal hartals, and outlines a structured mechanism for compensating victims of public violence, balancing individual rights with collective interests.