Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity Law of Limitation Binds All Equally, Including the State: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Review Petition with 5743 Days’ Delay Once Selected, All Are Equals: Allahabad High Court Slams State for Withholding Pay Protection From Later Batches of Ex-Servicemen Constables Non-Compliance With Section 42 of NDPS Act Is Fatal to Prosecution: Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Two Accused In 160 Kg Poppy Husk Case Unregistered Agreement Creating Right of Way Inadmissible in Evidence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Summary Decree in Partition Suit Denied: Unequivocal Admissions Absent, Full Trial Necessary: Delhi High Court No Court Can Allow Itself to Be Used as an Instrument of Fraud: Delhi High Court Exposes Forged Writ Petition Filed in Name of Unaware Citizen "Deliberate Wage Splitting to Evade Provident Fund Dues Is Illegal": Bombay High Court Restores PF Authority's 7A Order Against Saket College and Centrum Direct Anti-Suit Injunction in Matrimonial Dispute Set Aside: Calcutta High Court Refuses to Stall UK Divorce Proceedings Filed by Wife

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