CPI(M) argued for its right to free speech, emphasizing its contributions to India. The party criticized the court's decision as biased and anti-constitutional, citing India's historical support for Palestine and global condemnation of Israel.
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Friday, July 25 questioned the Communist Party of India (CPIM)'s intentions to hold a protest for the people of Palestine and Gaza by dismissing a petition seeking permission for it. A division bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad observed that issues in Gaza does not affect Indian citizens and asked the party to take care of civic issues. The Polit Bureau of the CPI(M) hit back stating that the observations made during the rejection of the petition was anti-constitutional.
"Our country has several issues to deal with...We don't want anything like this. I am 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..." LiveLaw reported Justice Ghuge as saying.
CPIM tried to argue that the party has been taking up several causes for India, conducting health and education camps. However, the court wanted to know why the party wanted to protest the genocide in Gaza, which is thousands of miles away from India. “We are curious.. you have no issue with respect to our own country...something productive for our own country... They are fighting 1000s of miles away and you are showing concern for Palestine, Gaza etc. You can take up social issues and local issues like flooding, drainages getting blocked... Parking illegally... Why aren't you protesting such issues?” Justice Ghuge said.
Related Articles
Mihir Desai, appearing for CPIM, told the bench that the protest was not about India's border relations or about Operation Sindoor. "We want to just protest at the designated area in Azad Maidan. This petition is about our right to free speech and expression," he added.
Despite these arguments, the court rejected the petition stating that such issues should be dealt with the country's foreign department or External Affairs Ministry when the stance of the petitioners differs with the one by the Government of India.
"Whether to take a side for Palestine or Israel is their (Govt of India) work, why do you want to create such a situation that the country has to take sides on this? 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," Justice Ghuge told the petitioners.
It is important to note that Minister Kirti Vardhan Singh on July 25 had stated in Parliament that India has always supported a negotiated two State solution, towards establishment of a sovereign, independent and viable State of Palestine within secure and recognized borders, living side by side in peace with Israel. India had abstained in the vote on the recent resolution in the UNGA Emergency Special Session on 12 June, 2025.
Bombay HC Biased towards Central Government: CPIM
The Polit Bureau of the CPI(M) stated that the observations smack of distinct political bias in line with the central government. “The court went to the extent of calling into question the patriotism of the Party. Ironically, the bench appears to be unaware of either the provisions of the Constitution which enshrines the rights of a political party, or the history of our country and our people's solidarity with the Palestinians and their legitimate right to homeland,” it said.
CPIM further highlighted the role of Mahatma Gandhi, the national movement and subsequent foreign policy of independent India. “It also lays bare the fact that the bench does not realise the unequivocal condemnation globally against Israeli action and the stated positions of the UN bodies and the International Court of Justice.We appeal to the freedom and democracy loving people of the country to join us in unambiguously rejecting such a reprehensible attitude,” the statement added.
