KV Krishnaiah Vs State Of Andhra Pradesh: Petitioner Won’t Be Deprived Of The Right To Protest Only Because He Approached The Constitutional Court Regarding A Certain Issue

DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
24/01/2022

BENCH:
JUSTICE MR. AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH AND JUSTICE MS. BS BHANUMATHI

PARTIES:
PETITONER: KV KRISHNAIAH
RESPONDENT: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

SUBJECT

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that the plaintiff won’t be deprived of the right to protest just because he approached the constitutional bench about a certain issue.

OVERVIEW

1. The plaintiff submitted a writ suit over a salary pay dispute where the plaintiff requested a judgment that the State of Andhra Pradesh's G.O.M.s No. 1 on 17.01.2022 be deemed unlawful and discriminatory, as well as in violation of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014 and the Indian Constitution.
2. The Advocate then argued that since the Court had been summoned already by the Employees' Union's plea, it was considered inappropriate for the Union to ask for, or go on a protest, which might put the State's bureaucracy in a standstill.
3. He argued that while Article 19(1)(a) protects all people the right to freedom of expression and speech, it was not complete.
4. The Advocate then argued by citing the case of TK Rangarajan v. Government of Tamil Nadu, 2003 and stated that the workers did not have a fundamental right to protest because it is a tool that is frequently used to cause disorder and gross mismanagement.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India, TK Rangarajan v. Government of Tamil Nadu

ISSUE

Whether the right to protest is lost only due to the fact that that an issue is pending before the constitutional court?

JUDGEMENT

1. The Court citedthe Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India, 2018, where it was ruled that the right to peaceful protest was recognised as a fundamental right under the Constitution and was based on the educated citizen engagement in democracy.
2. It was critical because it promoted the representational government by allowing citizens to participate directly in government matters.
3. Based on the foregoing cases, the Court incorporated that pursuing a Court just wouldn't prevent the individual in question from organizing protests in a legally acceptable way, susceptible to the disclaimer that the individual in question must follow the existing guidelines and restrictions, including his condition as a public servant, if applicable.
4. In October,the previous year, the court headed by Justice AM Khanwilkar conducted an initial proceeding and ruled that an individual cannot stage large protests in a case that was still pending and asked the advocate representing the state for help in deciding the case.
5. Nevertheless, while reviewing another matter involving farmer rallies, a separate court headed by Justice SK Kaul issued an oral statement that the Court was not against the right to strike even though the matter was unresolved well before Court.
6. The writ petition was not determined on these grounds, and it was ordered to be heard by the competent court because the issue in question did not fall under their jurisdiction. The Bench went on to say that the comments made were completely circumstantial.

CONCLUSION

The Andhra Pradesh High Court stated that stated that the main reason of the protest is to draw the government’s attention to the respective subject matter. The court then ruled that the plaintiff won’t be deprived of any right to protest just based on the fact that he approached the constitutional bench about that certain issue.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement