Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad High Court

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