Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), comprising Justice Anil S. Kilor and Justice Rajnish R. Vyas, dismissed a writ petition challenging Western Coalfields Limited’s (WCL) order declaring a former employee and social activist as “persona non grata” for three years.
The Court held that no citizen possesses a fundamental right to enter a public office and disrupt its functioning. It ruled that the company’s decision to restrict the petitioner’s entry was justified and based on repeated misconduct, baseless complaints, and obstruction of official duties.
Citing the principle of reasonable restrictions under Article 19(5) of the Constitution, the Court concluded:
“Even fundamental rights are not absolute; when the conduct of a person hampers public administration, authorities are empowered to act to ensure smooth functioning.”
The petition was thus dismissed, and the earlier persona non grata order was upheld.
Facts
The petitioner, a 58-year-old former employee of WCL and self-proclaimed social activist, had been dismissed from service in 2004. Post-termination, he began visiting WCL offices across Nagpur, submitting numerous complaints against company officials on behalf of other employees and alleged whistleblowers.
In October 2024, WCL passed an order declaring him persona non grata for three years, citing security concerns, baseless complaints, and disruptive behavior. The order noted that his frequent visits violated visitor protocols and disrupted office functioning.
This was not the first such incident. The petitioner had earlier been barred in 2013 and again in 2021, but the restrictions were later revoked on the condition of good behavior. However, according to WCL, his conduct “remained unaltered,” prompting renewed restrictions.
The petitioner approached the High Court, contending that the persona non grata declaration violated his fundamental right to movement and expression, and was an attempt to stifle his activism.
Issues
- Whether a public sector undertaking like WCL has the authority to declare an individual persona non grata and restrict access to its premises.
- Whether such an order violates fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(d) of the Constitution.
- Whether repeated filing of complaints and entry into public offices constitute a legitimate exercise of rights or harassment of officials.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner, appearing in person, argued that his activism aimed at exposing corruption and ensuring transparency within WCL. He maintained that his entry into WCL offices was legitimate as it concerned the redressal of grievances of employees and contract workers.
He claimed that the company’s decision was malicious and retaliatory, intended to silence a whistleblower who sought to hold officials accountable. The petitioner further asserted that no law empowers a public authority to unilaterally curtail a citizen’s right to enter a government establishment.
He argued that the order violated Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, as it imposed an unreasonable restriction on his freedom of movement and right to participate in public affairs.
The petitioner also relied on the Court’s 2014 judgment in his earlier writ petition, where it was observed that while his entry could be regulated, he should be permitted to approach the appropriate forum for redressal. He contended that this earlier order had not been followed by WCL.
Respondent’s Arguments
WCL, represented by counsel, defended its decision as a security and administrative measure necessitated by the petitioner’s “repeated acts of disruption and intimidation.” It was contended that despite earlier warnings and revocations of the 2021 order, the petitioner continued to harass officials, disturb office operations, and make false and defamatory complaints.
The respondents highlighted that the petitioner no longer had any legal or employment relationship with WCL since 2004. His repeated entry into the office, under the pretext of social activism, had become a persistent source of interference in official work.
It was further submitted that WCL’s order did not violate fundamental rights since public premises are subject to regulated access, especially when the conduct of visitors poses a potential threat to security and discipline.
Analysis of the Law
The Court analyzed the meaning of persona non grata, noting that in non-diplomatic contexts, the term refers to an unwelcome person whose presence is undesirable due to conduct prejudicial to public order or institutional integrity.
It reaffirmed that Article 19(1)(d) guarantees freedom of movement, but this right is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(5) to maintain public order and administrative efficiency.
The Bench noted that WCL, being a public sector undertaking, must ensure the smooth and secure operation of its offices, and the petitioner’s repeated interference justified regulatory intervention. The petitioner could still pursue grievances through legal or online mechanisms, but not by physically entering and disrupting offices.
Precedent Analysis
- Sagar Hanumanta Daunde v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3711) – The Bombay High Court held that “no individual has a fundamental right to harass public officers performing lawful duties by repeatedly filing complaints or casting personal aspersions”. The present Bench relied heavily on this precedent to emphasize that activism cannot cross the line into harassment203200016272025_5.
- State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh (2021) 19 SCC 706 – The Supreme Court reaffirmed that even fundamental rights are subject to reasonable restrictions and must be balanced against public interest.
- Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P. (2013) 2 SCC 398 – The Court held that frivolous complaints and misuse of judicial process amount to abuse of fundamental rights.
These cases guided the Court in balancing individual freedom with institutional discipline.
Court’s Reasoning
The Bench observed that the petitioner had a history of confrontations with WCL, having been declared persona non grata multiple times in the past. Despite earlier leniency and revocation of restrictions, his conduct remained unchanged.
The judges noted:
“The petitioner’s intention to visit the office is not bona fide; his entry has repeatedly obstructed smooth functioning of the office.”
The Court further observed that while citizens have every right to lodge legitimate complaints, such rights cannot degenerate into harassment or personal vendetta. It stated that “the freedom to move or express cannot be weaponized to disrupt public offices.”
Rejecting the claim of fundamental rights violation, the Bench held that the petitioner’s conduct fell outside the scope of protected activity, and WCL’s decision was consistent with administrative prudence and public safety.
Conclusion
The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding WCL’s order declaring the petitioner persona non grata for three years. It concluded that:
- The petitioner’s behavior demonstrated lack of bona fides and habitual misconduct.
- Public offices are entitled to protect their staff from harassment and intimidation.
- Freedom of movement and expression must be balanced with institutional order.
“No person has an unqualified right to enter public offices and disrupt their functioning. Reasonable restrictions exist to ensure that rights are exercised with responsibility.”
The rule was discharged with no order as to costs.
Implications
This judgment reinforces that activism cannot justify disruptive conduct in public institutions. It affirms that persona non grata declarations may be legally valid when used to protect public administration from repeated harassment.
It also clarifies that while citizens can hold officials accountable, they must do so through lawful and non-obstructive channels such as online grievance systems or court proceedings. The decision marks a balance between freedom of expression and administrative order, safeguarding both public officials and institutional integrity.
