Employee's Chats On Private Whatsapp Group Protected By Fundamental Right To Freedom Of Speech: Kerala HC

The Bench cleared the employee of allegations of harming the company's reputation by spreading false information and libelous statements in the WhatsApp group.

A Single Bench of Justice Sathish Ninan observed, “The WhatsApp group was a private one, within the technicians of the Company. The mere expression of concern on safety cannot attract the charge in the nature as levelled against him. The petitioner is justified in his contention that his fundamental right of freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) is infringed. Charge No.1 levelled against the petitioner, could not be sustained.”

Advocate Kaleeswaram Raj represented the petitioner, while Advocate M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar appeared for the respondents.

The petition was filed by a technician (employee) at the Fertilizers and Chemicals of Travancore Ltd. (FACT). The petitioner contested his suspension and punishment for the alleged objectionable and derogatory WhatsApp post.

The employee responded to the charges expressing regret and seeking pardon, which led to the Disciplinary Authority issuing a punishment of a "warning." The employee challenged both the suspension and the punishment before the High Court.

The petitioner argued that the punishment was unlawful as it was imposed without conducting a formal inquiry, infringing on his fundamental right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. He contended that his posts in the WhatsApp group did not contain derogatory statements but rather expressed safety concerns.

The Court noted that the WhatsApp group was private and the posts primarily raised safety concerns. It was concluded that these concerns, while critical, did not constitute libelous or derogatory statements. Consequently, the first charge was found to be unsustainable and violative of the employee’s fundamental rights.

However, regarding the second charge of unauthorized entry into a restricted section, the Court stated “the petitioner's place of work was at R&D Udyogamandal, is admitted by him. Definitely such entry would attract contravention of the safety rules…Hence no formal enquiry was necessary on the said charge, to award punishment. Therefore, the failure to conduct a formal enquiry will not vitiate the proceedings regarding the second charge.”

Consequently, the Bench held that “though charge No.1 is held to be violative of fundamental right, the finding of guilt on charge No.2 and the punishment imposed does not warrant any interference.”

Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the petition.

Cause Title: Sujith T.V. v. Fertilisers And Chemicals Travancore Ltd. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:42302)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Kaleeswaram Raj, Varun C.Vijay, Thulasi K. Raj and Maitreyi Sachidananda Hegde

Respondents: Advocates M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, K. John Mathai, Joson Manavalan, Kuryan Thomas, Paulose C. Abraham and Raja Kannan

Click here to read/download the Judgment