Expression of Safety Concerns in Private Forum Protected Under Article 19(1)(a): Kerala High Court”

Employee’s Suspension Over WhatsApp Safety Concerns Quashed; Unauthorized Entry Punishment Upheld

The Kerala High Court, in a landmark ruling on June 18, 2024, partially quashed the disciplinary actions taken against Sujith T.V., an employee of Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. (FACT). The court upheld Sujith’s right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, ruling that his expression of safety concerns in a private WhatsApp group cannot be grounds for punishment. However, the court sustained the punishment for unauthorized entry into a restricted area.

Sujith T.V. was an employee at FACT when, on July 31, 2019, he was suspended pending an inquiry into allegations against him. A memo of charges issued on August 5, 2019, accused Sujith of spreading false information through a WhatsApp group named “Technician Official” and making unauthorized entry into the ammonia handling section at FACT’s Cochin division, despite his designated workplace being at the R&D unit in Udyogamandal. Sujith admitted to the unauthorized entry but denied the allegations regarding the WhatsApp posts, arguing that they were an exercise of his fundamental right to freedom of speech.

Freedom of Speech: Justice Sathish Ninan, in his judgment, underscored the protection of free speech, noting, “Expression of concerns on safety within a private forum cannot be penalized.” The court found that the charge related to spreading false information via WhatsApp violated Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.

Unauthorized Entry: Addressing the charge of unauthorized entry, the court observed that Sujith had admitted to entering a restricted area without permission. “Given the unambiguous admission of unauthorized entry, no formal inquiry was necessary to impose the punishment of a warning,” the court stated.

Necessity of Enquiry: The court ruled that a formal inquiry was unnecessary for the admitted charge of unauthorized entry. However, regarding the objectionable posts, the court noted that merely apologizing does not equate to admitting guilt, thereby necessitating a formal inquiry to validate the charge.

Fundamental Rights: The court upheld Sujith’s right to freedom of speech, finding that his posts were expressions of safety concerns shared in a private group of company technicians. “The nature of the posts, which raised legitimate safety concerns, cannot be considered derogatory or harmful to the company’s reputation,” Justice Ninan remarked.

Justice Sathish Ninan stated, “The expression of safety concerns in a private forum does not warrant disciplinary action and is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.” On the unauthorized entry, he noted, “The petitioner’s admission of unauthorized entry into a restricted area justified the issuance of a warning without the need for a formal inquiry.”

The Kerala High Court’s ruling reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to upholding fundamental rights, particularly the right to free speech. By quashing the charge related to the WhatsApp posts, the court has sent a strong message about the protection of employee rights in expressing legitimate concerns. However, the court’s decision to uphold the punishment for unauthorized entry underscores the importance of adhering to safety regulations within industrial environments.

Date of Decision: 18th June 2024