In a landmark judgement, the Kerala High Court ruled in favour of an employee of Sujit TV who was being reprimanded for posting in a private WhatsApp group.
Sujit, 34, was accused by his employer of spreading information that the company’s environment was unsafe and trespassing in a restricted area. Despite Sujit apologizing, his employer issued a warning without conducting a formal investigation, a charge he challenged in court.
Key Point
- Complaints and lawsuits:
- Sujit was charged with making an inappropriate post in a private WhatsApp group and entering a restricted area without authorisation.
- The company issued the warning based on Sujit’s apology and without conducting a formal investigation.
- Legal Claims:
- Sujit maintained that the posts did not contain any offensive content and instead contained safety concerns.
- He argued that the disciplinary action violated his fundamental right to freedom of speech as provided for in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
- Court ruling:
- The court found that Sujit’s posts expressed safety concerns and did not justify prosecution.
- The court found that the first charge was unjustified because no formal investigation was conducted, but the second charge was not unjustified because Sujit had admitted to entering the country illegally.
- The court upheld Sujit’s freedom of speech and noted that his posts did not warrant disciplinary action.
reference: Bank of Baroda MD and CEO summoned before Labour Commissioner
What is the Kerala High Court ruling?
The judgment of the Kerala High Court in a case involving Sujit TV, an employee of the fertiliser and chemicals division of Travancore Corporation, can be summarised as follows:
Reporting offensive posts
The court ruled in favour of Sujit on the charge of making objectionable posts in a private WhatsApp group. The court found that his posts expressed safety concerns and did not justify disciplinary action. The court held that the charges violated Sujit’s fundamental right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
Crime of trespass
The court upheld the charge of unauthorised entry into the ammonia processing unit. Sujit had admitted to the charge and the court found that no formal investigation was necessary into this particular charge.
Disciplinary Actions
The court quashed the initial charges related to the WhatsApp posts and upheld Sujit’s right to freedom of expression. However, the court did not interfere, finding that a “warning” punishment for unauthorised entry was appropriate given the circumstances and Sujit’s admission of the charges.
Conclusion
In summary, the Kerala High Court ruled in favour of Sujit’s right to freedom of speech but upheld the disciplinary action for unauthorised entry. The final decision was to dispose of the writ petition, find a violation of fundamental rights on the first charge and uphold the punishment on the second charge.
