Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

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