Bombay HC Dismisses CPI(M) Gaza Protest Plea, Urges Focus on ‘Indian Issues’
By Amit Kumar
The Bombay High Court on Friday rejected a petition filed by the Communist Party of India (Marxist), challenging Mumbai Police’s denial of permission to hold a demonstration in support of Gaza, challenging the significance of the protest topic and advising the party to prioritize domestic concerns instead.
A division bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Gautam A. Ankhad dismissed the plea, remarking that “India is already grappling with numerous internal issues,” and suggesting that “patriotism should begin with concern for our own citizens.”
“Our country has several issues to deal with… We don’t want anything like this,” said Justice Ghuge, addressing the CPI(M)’s plea to protest Israel’s ongoing assault on Gaza.
“I’m sorry to say, you are all short-sighted… You are looking at Gaza and Palestine… Why don’t you do something for our own country? Be patriots. Speaking for Gaza and Palestine is not patriotism…
Speak up for the causes in our own country. Practice what you preach.” the court said.
“They are fighting thousands of miles away, and you are showing concern for Palestine, Gaza etc.
Why aren’t you protesting something productive for our own country, local issues like flooding, blocked drainage, illegal parking?” the bench asked.
Senior Advocate Mihir Desai, appearing for CPI(M), clarified that the party’s proposed protest at Azad
Maidan was unrelated to India’s foreign relations or Operation Sindoor.
Desai emphasized, “We want to just protest at the designated area in Azad Maidan. This petition is about our right to free speech and expression.”
But the court was unconvinced. Justice Ghuge remarked,“Where our own citizens or common man is not concerned, why are you taking up that cause? Throwing garbage anywhere is not an issue? Do we have so much time to spend hearing such a matter when we have hundreds of cases of our own citizens listed? Are these not our constitutional issues?”
The bench pointed out that India’s foreign policy is the domain of the external affairs ministry.
“Whether to take a side for Palestine or Israel is the job of the Government of India. Why do you want to create a situation where the country is forced to take sides? You don’t know the dust it could kick up. It’s obvious, going by the party you represent, that you don’t understand the potential impact on the nation’s foreign affairs,” Justice Ghuge added.
“The observations made by the court are deeply anti-constitutional and betray a disturbing political bias. The bench went so far as to question the patriotism of the CPI(M), ignoring both the constitutional rights of political parties and India’s long history of solidarity with the Palestinian cause,” the CPI(M) said.
Referring to the court’s comments about prioritizing local concerns like garbage and flooding, CPI(M) countered, “Ironically, the bench appears unaware of the legacy of India’s national movement, which never flinched in its support for Palestine’s right to freedom and homeland. The court’s statements reflect a clear alignment with the Central government’s political line.”
The party also referenced the court’s worries about how permitting these protests might affect
India’s foreign policy.“The bench said, ‘You don’t know the dust it could kick up… It’s obvious, going by the party you represent, that you don’t understand what this could do to the foreign affairs of the country.’ This is not only unjustified, but also a veiled attempt to suppress dissent under the guise of national interest,” the CPI(M) said.
The party stated that such remarks ignore the widespread international condemnation of Israel’s
actions, as well as the firm positions adopted by the United Nations and the International Court of Justice.
“The court’s stance stands in sharp contrast to the global moral consensus on Gaza. It is alarming
when a constitutional court chooses to overlook such realities,” the party noted.
The Polit Bureau urged citizens to resist such dangerous precedents, appealing to “all freedom- and democracy-loving people to unequivocally reject this reprehensible attitude. Silencing solidarity is
not patriotism, it is complicity.