There's No Fundamental Right To Protest At Any Place The Agitator Pleases; Reasonable Restriction Can Be Imposed: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court observed that there is no fundamental right to protest at any place the agitator pleases and that reasonable restriction can be imposed upon the exercise of such rights.
The Bench restrained the Federal Bank Officers' Association (Association) and its members by a temporary prohibitory injunction from obstructing the Federal Bank (Bank) officials and customers from dealing with the bank, obstructing their ingress and egress, committing any act of waste or damage to the bank's property, holding any protest meeting, dharna, demonstration, erecting tents or shouting slogans within a radius of 50 metres from the premises of the head office.
A Single Bench of Justice Kauser Edappagath observed, “Striking a balance between the rights of the petitioner bank as well as the rights of the respondent association, I am of the view that the respondent association should be restrained from making protests in any form within a radius of 50 metres from the premises of the head office and nearby branches of the petitioner bank more particularly described in the plaint schedule. By such modification, the constitutional right of the respondent association to protest and to form peaceful gatherings and form associations would not be curtailed.”
Sr. Advocate Vivek Chib represented the petitioner, while Sr. Advocate K.Ramakumar appeared for the respondent.
The Bank instituted a suit against the Association—a trade union representing officers from Scale 1 to III—following a surprise dharna. The dharna, which took place at the bank's head office was in protest against the transfers of employees and included the display of posters with allegedly false and misleading content.
The initial suit sought a permanent prohibitory injunction to prevent the association from obstructing the bank’s operations and damaging its property. It also aimed to restrict protests within a 200-meter radius of the bank's premises. The trial court granted a temporary injunction. The appellate court modified the injunction granted regarding the distance upon appeal by the association.
The Bank argued that the demonstration of dharna would severely damage the faith and confidence reposed with the bank by the investors and customers besides causing injury and damage to its reputation and credibility. The association on the other hand argued that the acts allegedly done by the association were protected under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution and any blanket order prohibiting the exercise of the said legitimate right would be violative of the said fundamental rights.
The High Court noted, “It is trite that whenever two fundamental rights compete, the court will balance the two to allow the meaningful exercise of both.”
The Bench referred to Kaushal Kishor v. State of U.P where the Supreme Court held that the Court has to strike a balance whenever it was found that the exercise of fundamental rights by an individual caused inroads into the space available for the exercise of fundamental rights by another individual.
“The appellate court erred in ruling contrary to the ratio laid down in the decisions of the Supreme Court and various High Courts mentioned above wherein dharna/demonstrations have been restricted to certain metres from the premises of the employer. The appellate court failed to recognize that there is no fundamental right to protest at any place the agitator pleases, and that reasonable restriction can be imposed upon the exercise of such rights if proved to exist,” the Court remarked.
The Court's decision modified the previous injunction orders concerning the protest activities by the association.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the petition.
Cause Title: The Federal Bank Ltd. v. Federal Bank Officers' Association (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:42258)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Sr. Advocate Vivek Chib; Advocates Latha Anand, M.N.Radhakrishna Menon, Sidharth P.S., K.R. Pramoth Kumar, S.Vishnu (Arikkattil), Atul Shankar Vindon, Sidharth P.S. and Mansi Gupta
Respondent: Sr. Advocate K.Ramakumar; Advocates Abhilash N, P.S.Sujeth, R.Arun (Palluruthy) and M.P.Unnikrishnan