Dishonest Intent Must Be From Inception For Criminality: Supreme Court Quashes Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust FIR 'Cannot Blow Hot And Cold': Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance, Citing Plaintiffs' Inconsistent Conduct & Failure To Prove Continuous Readiness Wife's Residence In Another District For Child's Schooling Cannot Be Sole Ground To Transfer Matrimonial Case: Allahabad High Court Land Acquisition Lapses If Mandatory 80% Compensation Not Paid Before Taking 'Advance Possession' Under Urgency Clause: Bombay High Court Mere Designation As Director Insufficient For Vicarious Liability Under Section 141 NI Act Without Specific Averments: Calcutta High Court Dissatisfaction With Court's Reasoning Or Desire For Elaborate Discussion Not A Ground For Review: Delhi High Court Litigant Pursuing Review Petition Bona Fide Cannot Be Penalised With Limitation Bar For Subsequent Appeal: Delhi High Court Executing Court Not Required To Adjudicate Third-Party Objections Like A Regular Civil Suit, Summary Inquiry Sufficient: Gujarat High Court Karnataka High Court Allows Students To Submit 2017-18 SC Certificates For CET-2026 Registration, Directs KEA To Accommodate Corrections Criminal Proceedings Cannot Be Transferred Merely Because Complainant Finds It Difficult To Attend: Kerala High Court No Vested Right For Advocates To Demand Listing Of Cases Ahead Of Older Litigations: Madras High Court Benami Defense Unavailable In Suits Instituted After 1988 Act; Registered Sale Deed Cannot Be Altered By Oral Evidence: MP High Court Property Sale During Pendency Of Suit Is Subservient To Final Outcome, Void Decree Must Be Challenged In Competent Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court SC/ST Employees Can Claim Consequential Seniority For Subsequent Promotions Against Unreserved Posts: Telangana High Court Section 37 NDPS Rigours Pale Into Oblivion Against Article 21 During Long Custody; Disclosure Of Co-Accused Is Weak Evidence: Punjab & Haryana HC

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