Kerala HC upholds employee's right to freedom of speech on WhatsApp

An employee challenged his suspension and disciplinary punishment for sharing safety concerns in a private WhatsApp group

The Kerala High Court, earlier this week, ruled in favour of an employee, in the case Sujith TV vs Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd, who challenged his suspension and disciplinary punishment for sharing safety concerns in a private WhatsApp group. The court opined that there is no wrongdoing in an employee sharing messages about workplace safety in a private group.

The petitioner was represented by Advocates Kaleeswaram Raj, Varun C Vijay, Thulasi K Raj, and Maitreyi Sachidananda Hegde. Respondents were represented by M Gopikrishnan Nambiar, K John Mathai, Joson Manavalan, Kuryan Thomas, Paulose C Abraham, and Raja Kannan.
 

Justice Sathish Ninan presided over the single-judge bench.

The case background
 

The employee of Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd faced suspension pending an inquiry and was charged with:

1. Harming company reputation: Allegedly spreading false and defamatory information in a WhatsApp group named ‘Technician Official’, which suggested an unsafe work environment and incited co-workers against the company.
2. Unauthorised entry: Entering the ammonia handling section at the Cochin division on July 28, 2019, despite being assigned to R&D Udyogamandal.

The employee had expressed regret, sought pardon, and assured no recurrence of such actions. The company’s disciplinary authority, accepting his regret, issued a warning.

On asking why the petitioner waited years to file the writ petition, the petitioner stated that he had not been aware that this ‘warning’ would be entered into his service book and affect his future career prospects.

He challenged the suspension and ‘warning’ on grounds of lack of inquiry or hearing before being punished.  The petitioner’s counsel claimed that the messages in the private WhatsApp group were not derogatory and that the charges violated his fundamental right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.

The respondents contended that the petitioner had accepted the punishment and filed the writ petition two years later. They added that since the petitioner admitted the charges, a formal inquiry was deemed unnecessary.

Court’s observations and ruling
 

The court addressed the merits of the case due to the alleged violation of fundamental rights. The court observed that the employee’s apology for the first charge did not constitute an admission of guilt, necessitating a formal inquiry. However, the court found that the petitioner admitted unauthorised entry into the ammonia handling section, violating safety rules. This admission justified the imposition of punishment without a formal inquiry.

“The WhatsApp group was a private one, within the technicians of the company. The mere expression of concern on safety cannot attract the charge in the nature as leveled against him. The petitioner is justified in his contention that his fundamental right of freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) is infringed,” the court said.

Based on these observations, the writ petition was disposed of, with the court recognising the violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights regarding the first charge but upholding the disciplinary action on the second charge. The court emphasised the importance of formal inquiries in disciplinary proceedings, especially when fundamental rights are at stake.