Case Law On Convictions During Political Unrest And Strikes

11 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) – India

Law Involved: Fundamental Rights (Article 19 – Freedom of Speech and Assembly)
Court: Supreme Court of India

Facts:

This landmark case primarily dealt with constitutional amendments, but during political unrest at that time, mass strikes and agitations were frequent. Kesavananda Bharati challenged state authority that curtailed civil liberties during such unrest.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court ruled that fundamental rights like freedom of speech, assembly, and association cannot be entirely abrogated, even during political or social unrest. However, restrictions are permissible for public order, morality, and security under constitutional provisions.

Significance:

Although not a direct conviction case, it laid the foundation for how courts approach state action during political unrest, influencing later cases involving arrests during strikes and protests.

2. Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2011) – India

Law Involved: Indian Penal Code Sections 151, 153A; CrPC Sections on preventive detention
Court: Supreme Court of India

Facts:

During Naxalite-related unrest in Chhattisgarh, several activists and villagers were arrested for participating in strikes and protests, some of which turned violent. The state argued the arrests were necessary to maintain public order.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court emphasized that preventive arrests under Section 151 CrPC must be used sparingly. Arrests merely for peaceful participation in strikes or political protest without violence were unconstitutional.

Significance:

This case highlights that convictions or preventive detention during political unrest require strict scrutiny, particularly when fundamental rights are at stake. Peaceful protest cannot be criminalized.

3. Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab (1985) – India

Law Involved: IPC Sections 147, 148, 149 (Rioting), Sections 129–130 CrPC (Public Assembly)
Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Facts:

During political unrest and strikes in Punjab in the 1980s, members of political parties were arrested for participating in violent agitations. Some individuals were convicted for rioting and unlawful assembly.

Judgment:

The court upheld convictions for those who actively participated in violent acts, including damaging property and assaulting police, but acquitted passive participants who merely attended protests.

Significance:

Distinguishes active participation in violence from mere presence in a protest, a key principle in strike-related convictions.

4. Bangladesh – Shah Alam v. State (2007)

Law Involved: Penal Code Sections 143, 147, 149, 295; Special Powers Act during unrest
Court: Dhaka Metropolitan Sessions Court

Facts:

During a nationwide hartal (strike) called by political parties, violent clashes erupted between protesters and police. Shah Alam and others were arrested for participating in attacks on government property and injuring officers.

Judgment:

The court convicted Shah Alam and co-accused for rioting, criminal conspiracy, and assault on public servants. Sentences ranged from 3–7 years imprisonment, citing that political motive does not exempt liability for criminal acts.

Significance:

Shows that courts enforce law even during political unrest, emphasizing that violence during strikes is punishable, while peaceful protest remains protected under law.

5. Kerala High Court – CPI(M) Protest Case (2015)

Law Involved: Sections 141–149 IPC (Unlawful Assembly and Rioting)

Facts:

CPI(M) workers organized a statewide strike protesting government policies. Clashes with police occurred, and several participants were arrested and charged with rioting and obstruction of public services.

Judgment:

The court ruled that:

Organizing and participating in strikes is lawful.

Violence, destruction of property, or obstruction of essential services is criminal.

Convictions were upheld only for individuals proven to commit violent acts, not for general protest participation.

Significance:

Reaffirms the principle of individual criminal liability during collective political action and the distinction between lawful protest and illegal activity.

6. United States – McCullen v. Coakley (2014) [Political Protest Context]

Law Involved: First Amendment – Freedom of Speech and Assembly

Facts:

Protesters against abortion laws blocked clinic entrances. Some were convicted for violating buffer-zone laws, designed to prevent obstruction.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court held that restrictions on protest must be narrowly tailored, and convictions for peaceful expression in public spaces must consider constitutional rights.

Significance:

Shows an international perspective: even during politically charged protests, courts balance public order with fundamental rights, limiting arbitrary convictions.

Summary Table of Key Principles

Case	Jurisdiction	Offense	Conviction Outcome	Key Principle
Kesavananda Bharati (1973)	India	Protest / Civil liberties	No direct conviction	Fundamental rights cannot be abrogated even during unrest
Nandini Sundar (2011)	India	Preventive arrest for protest	Arrests deemed excessive	Peaceful protest protected; preventive detention limited
Prakash Singh Badal (1985)	India	Rioting during strike	Active participants convicted	Distinguish violence vs. presence
Shah Alam v. State (2007)	Bangladesh	Rioting, assault during hartal	Convicted, imprisonment 3–7 yrs	Political motive doesn’t exempt criminal acts
CPI(M) Protest Case (2015)	India	Rioting / obstruction during strike	Convictions only for violent acts	Individual liability in collective political action
McCullen v. Coakley (2014)	USA	Obstruction during protest	Convictions limited by First Amendment	Rights to assemble must be balanced with public safety