Ashish Goel and Piyush Karn in this case analysis throw light on the loopholes in T.K. Rangarajan case and reevaluate it from a comparative perspective and presents the uncertainty in judicial approach towards this sensitive issue of strike.
Abstract
This paper highlights the loopholes in T. K. Rangarajan case, reevaluates it from a comparative perspective and presents the uncertainty in judicial approach towards this sensitive issue of strike. In doing so, it also revisits the previous judgments of Indian constitutional courts and uses Kameshwar Prasad and B. R. Singh and others v. Union of India to conclude that there is a fundamental right to strike under the Indian Constitution. Although there have been pronouncements by the Indian judiciary on the validity of the right to strike and its nature, if as a fundamental right and in context of government employees there needs to be greater unanimity in its constitutional status. It is in this context that a comparative analysis is drawn from the judiciary trends in South Africa, US & Canada.
In pursuance of understanding & comparing the cogent and clear reasoning propounded by the constitutional courts in the said countries an appraisal of the ‘comparative constitutional’ approach is attempted. The imbibing of the significance of equality, individual autonomy, and dignity in human life as seen in the mentioned countries is argued for to be incorporated in the Indian approach so that it is not at loggerheads or asynchronous to international norms and standards on the right to strike.