“Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Successive FIRs Cannot Be Used to Thwart Bail: Supreme Court Invokes Article 32 to Protect Personal Liberty Supreme Court Enforces Contractual Bar Against Interest in Government Contracts Ex Parte Decree Not a Blank Cheque - Merely Because Defendant Absent, Plaintiff’s Case Not Presumed True: Madras High Court Mandatory Injunction Cannot Be Kept in Cold Storage: Supreme Court Enforces Strict Three-Year Limitation for Execution Senior Citizens Act Is for Maintenance, Not a Shortcut to Eviction: Calcutta High Court Restrains Tribunal’s Overreach Statement ‘Counsel Says’ Is Not a Binding Undertaking Without Client’s Specific Authorization: Allahabad High Court Declines to Initiate Contempt Rigours of Section 43-D(5) Melt Down When Liberty Is at Stake: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail in UAPA Case After 2.5 Years’ Custody Vakalatnama Is Not a Mere Form – Attestation Is a Legal Safeguard: Andhra Pradesh High Court Cautions Advocates and Registry on Procedural Sanctity Right to Be Considered for Promotion Is Fundamental – Employer’s Unfairness Cannot Defeat It: : Gujarat High Court Panchayat Statement Implicating Others Is Not a Confession Proper: J&K High Court Rejects Extra-Judicial Confession in Murder Appeal Contempt Lies Only on ‘Wilful and Deliberate Disobedience’ – Fresh KASP Appointments Not Replacement of Daily Wage Workers: Kerala High Court 498A Cannot Become a Dragnet for Entire Family: Orissa High Court Shields Distant In-Laws but Sends Husband to Trial Forgery Of ACR Is No Part Of Official Duty: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against IFS Officer Sole Eye-Witness Not Wholly Reliable, Conviction Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused in Alleged Witchcraft Double Murder Case Functional Disability, Not Mere Physical Percentage, Determines Compensation: Kerala High Court Remands Employees’ Compensation Case for Medical Board Assessment Conviction Cannot Rest On Fictitious Memorandums – When Investigation Is Tainted, Benefit Of Doubt Must Follow: MP High Court Legal Objection Cannot Be Sprung in Second Appeal: P&H High Court Draws Sharp Line Between ‘Legal Plea’ and ‘Legal Objection’ When Foundational Facts Are Seriously Disputed, Writ Court Ought Not To Undertake A Fact-Finding Exercise: Kerala High Court Compliance Affidavits Are Nothing But Admission of Disobedience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Puts Chief Secretaries and DGPs in Dock Over Arnesh Kumar Violations Husband’s Salary Slips Are Personal Information: Rajasthan High Court Refuses Disclosure Under RTI

Right to Protest Must Not Interfere with Business Operations: Kerala High Court Rules in Federal Bank Case

01 April 2025 4:04 PM

By: sayum


High Court reduces protest restriction radius to 50 meters, balancing rights under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution. The High Court of Kerala has issued a pivotal judgment modifying the temporary injunction granted to Federal Bank Ltd., which sought to restrain the Federal Bank Officers’ Association from staging protests. The Court emphasized the necessity of balancing the constitutional right to protest with the right to conduct business. The injunction, initially set to prevent protests within 200 meters of the bank premises, has been modified to 50 meters.

The case originated when Federal Bank Ltd. Filed a suit seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against the Federal Bank Officers’ Association to prevent protests within 200 meters of its premises. The trial court granted this injunction, but it was subsequently challenged by the association, leading to a modification by the appellate court, reducing the restriction to 50 meters. Dissatisfied with this modification, the bank approached the High Court.

The High Court highlighted the importance of balancing the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The court referenced multiple precedents to support the reasonableness of the 50-meter restriction. “While the right to protest is vital, it must not interfere with business operations and customer access to the bank,” the court stated.

The trial court initially issued a broad restriction, which the appellate court modified, allowing protests within 50 meters. The High Court upheld this modification, noting the need for a reasonable balance between the right to protest and the right to conduct business. The court recognized that peaceful protests close to the bank could harm its reputation and affect customer confidence.

The judgment extensively discussed the principles of evaluating competing fundamental rights. The court cited several Supreme Court and High Court decisions to support the 50-meter restriction. “The exercise of fundamental rights must be balanced with the rights of others, particularly in sensitive areas like business operations,” the court observed. The decision underscored that the right to protest must be exercised without infringing on the right to conduct lawful business.

Justice Dr. Kauser Edappagath remarked, “The constitutional right to protest and to form peaceful gatherings and associations must not curtail the right of the employer to carry on their lawful business.”

The High Court’s modification of the temporary injunction underscores the judiciary’s commitment to balancing fundamental rights. By reducing the protest restriction radius to 50 meters, the judgment affirms the necessity of maintaining a conducive environment for business while respecting the rights of trade unions to protest. This decision is expected to set a significant precedent in similar cases, ensuring that the exercise of constitutional rights does not disrupt business operations unduly.

Federal Bank Ltd. Vs. Federal Bank Officers’ Association

Date of Decision: 18th June 2024

Latest Legal News