Bombay HC Rejects Call for Suo Motu Action on CPI(M)’s Gaza Protest Remarks

The Bombay High Court on Monday, August 4, 2025, refused to take suo motu cognizance of a press note issued by the Communist Party of India (Marxist), which had strongly condemned the court’s earlier order dismissing the party’s plea seeking permission to protest ongoing “genocide” in Gaza by Israel.

Earlier, a division bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad had dismissed the petition challenging Mumbai Police’s refusal to grant permission for the protest.

Following the dismissal, the CPI(M) issued a press note publicly criticising the High Court’s observations. “We appeal to the freedom and democracy-loving people of the country to join us in unambiguously rejecting such a reprehensible attitude,” the note said.

During Monday’s hearing, Senior Advocate SM Gorwadkar urged the court to take suo motu cognizance of the press note, highlighting the contemptuous tone adopted by the party. He submitted that the language used was a clear attempt to erode public confidence in the judiciary.

The bench, however, declined the request. It added that since the party had been asserting its right to condemn the court’s order, let them do it, the court remarked.

For context, the bench had earlier observed that people must first show patriotism towards their own country before protesting global issues.“Speaking for Gaza and Palestine is not patriotism. Speak up for the causes in our own country. Practice what you preach,” the bench had stated.

Observing that India is already grappling with several challenges, the court had earlier questioned the petitioner’s focus on foreign matters that do not directly impact Indian citizens.

In its press note, the CPI(M) strongly condemned the remarks made by the bench.

“The Polit Bureau of the CPI(M) strongly condemns the observations of the Bombay High Court bench while rejecting an application by the Party to challenge the Mumbai Police’s refusal to allow a protest action against the ongoing Israeli genocide in Gaza,” the note said.

Criticising the court further, the note stated, “While doing so, 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 enshrine 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 a homeland. The observations smack of distinct political bias in line with the central government.”

Quoting from the oral observations, the party’s statement highlighted: “You don’t know the dust it could kick up. Getting on to the Palestine side or the Israel side. Why do you want to do this? 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.” The court further remarked, “You are an organisation registered in India. If you could take up issues like garbage dumping, pollution, sewerage, flooding. We are just giving examples. You are not protesting on those but on something happening thousands of miles outside the country.”

These observations, the party added, overlook the fact that Mahatma Gandhi in the 1940s, along with the national movement and the foreign policy of independent India, had consistently supported the Palestinian people’s right to freedom and a homeland.

“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,” the note said.

During the last hearing, Senior Advocate Mihir Desai, appearing for CPI(M), had argued that the plea was about their right to free speech and expression under the Constitution. He added that the protest had nothing to do with India’s foreign policy or border relations and was not related to “Operation Sindoor.”

The bench, while referring to recent Supreme Court observations, reportedly said the right to free speech is being misused. It added that it is for the Government of India to decide its diplomatic stance on international matters like the Israel-Palestine conflict and questioned the petitioner on why he wanted to create a situation where the country would be forced to take sides.

Dismissing the plea, the bench had observed that issues concerning international conflicts like Gaza are best handled by the Ministry of External Affairs, especially when the petitioner’s stand differs from that of the Government of India.

Case Title: Communist Party of India (Marxist) through Shailendra Kamble vs State of Maharashtra

Date: August 4, 2025

Bench: Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad