Indian Institute Of Technology vs Co-Ordination Committee And ...
2001 Latest Caselaw 1396 Del

ORDER

J.D. Kapoor, J.

1. The plaintiff, which is country's ace Institution for Technical Education, has approached this Court through this suit for restraining the defendants, who are involved in union activities and their office bearers, associates, servants, agents from holding any agitation, demonstration or 'dharna' in any manner whatsoever within the radius of 200 meters from the main entrance of the campus of the IIT Delhi at Hauz Khas, New Delhi, a premier Institute of the country and also from gheraoing any of its officers, causing any wrongful restraint, nuisance or annoyance of any of the employees of the defendants, intimidating or preventing or obstructing their access to and ingress and egress From the said premises of the Institute and from causing any obstruction or disturbance in any manner whatsoever in the conduct of classes, sessions in the laboratories and departments.

2. However the defendants have challenged the very maintainability of the suit as according to them the suit is malafide as on 16th September, 1999 they had informed the Director of the plaintiff Institute during the discussions that the 'Mass Dharna' scheduled for 20th September, 1999 would not be held, but the Union would continue with its daily two hours peaceful 'dharna'. The Director was told that a resolution to that effect would be passed and conveyed to him on 17th September, 1999 but with its members, the Director rushed to the Court and concealed the aforesaid facts which if brought to the notice would have disentitled him from claiming the ex parte injunction.

3. In view of this, what is relevant as to the right to freedom of speech and expression for the aforesaid purpose is as to what is the nature and extent of right to hold demonstrations and whether such a right is absolute right in terms of Article 19 of the Constitution of India which guarantees the right of freedom of speech and of assembling peacefully and grants freedom for form associations as contemplated by clause 9(b) and (c) of the Article 19.

4. Again there is unvarying unanimous opinion that such a right is not unfettered or absolute or in the nature of free for all. In 1991 LLR 792, A.D. Singh, J. also dealt with this aspect at great length and placing reliance on , Kameshwar Prasad and others vs. State of Bihar and another; , Railway Board, New Delhi and another vs. Niranjan Singh; 1966 Lab. IC 1543, The Association of State Road Transport Undertakings vs. The Association of State Road Transport UnderTakings Employees Union (Regd.) and others observed that every citizen of India has freedom of speech and to form associations and unions but there no right to hold meetings and shout slogans at premises legally occupied by another. Freedom is thus shackled by responsibility. There can be no freedom without responsibility.

5. Reliance was placed on Food Corporation of India and another vs. Yadav Engineer and Contractor. Under the statute or article 19 of the Constitution Jurisdiction of civil court is not barred under section 9 CPC.

6. However there is a unanimity that legitimate right of the Unions can be preserved and protected only by allowing them to hold demonstrations at a distance of 50 or 100 meters from the legally occupied premises. It is in this context that learned counsel for the defendants has contended that since the inception of the Institution and the formation of the Union the defendants have been holding demonstrations, dharnas etc. in the premises itself without creating any nuisance and therefore now to ask them to hold such demonstrations outside the Institution or to say 100 meter from the boundary wall of the Institution would be trammelling upon their right of holding peaceful demonstrations.

7. However the learned counsel while advocating the right of the defendants in holding demonstrations inside the premises provided three main reasons. Firstly, that for the last 40 years the atmosphere of the Institute has never been vitiated ever while holding the demonstrations inside the premises, secondly IIT is a vast sprawling Institute set up on an area of 300 acres of land and if the defendants are restrained from holding any demonstration or dharna even 50 meters from the main gate of the IIT then that 50 meters is across the outer ring road and the defendants would land up in a residential colony known as Safdarjang Development Area which would unnecessarily inconvenience the innocent residents and, thirdly, the very effect of raising their grievances will be lost as the plaintiffs will not even see its light what to talk of feel its heat.

8. However the counsel also feels that in order to appreciate his contention that the holding of demonstration inside the premises in no way will vitiate the atmosphere the physical inspection of the premises is necessary. However, he has demonstrated it through a site plan.

9. It is further contended that the fact that the class rooms, Laboratory and Computer Centre are situated at a considerably reasonable distance from the Director's office and as such the Union's activities are not likely to cause any disturbance in the educational activities of the students. The distances of various departments from the Director's office have been detailed in para 10 of the affidavit. In view of this, the defendants' counsel has emphasized upon the right of the defendants to hold demonstrations at a distance of 50 meters or so from the Director's office itself which, according to him, if denied would indirectly impinge upon its constitutional right of airing grievance and seeking redressal through legitimate means of holding demonstration, raising slogans etc.

10. I find myself in comport with the counsel for the defendants particularly in view of the topography of the Institution and locational disadvantage the defendants are placed in vis-a-vis distance of even 50 meters from the outer boundary wall of the Institution.

11. Facts of every case have its peculiar contours. No iron-jacket rule of permitting demonstrations at a distance of 50 meters or 100 meters from the legally occupied premises of the aggrieved party can be applied in every case. For instance, if the said rule is applied in this case, the effect and method of airing of grievances would not only lose its sheen but would sheer one's fundamental right enshrined in Article 19 of the Constitution.

12. The Institution has a sprawling area of 300 acres. Class Rooms, Laboratories and Administrative Block are inordinately distantly situated from each other. Boundary wall runs Along with the broad busy road. Across the road is a residential colony. If the defendants are permitted to hold demonstration etc. at a distance of 50 or 100 meters they would find themselves either on the road itself or land themselves in the residential colony. Both of these situations are hazardous and impermissible. Thus to be fair to both the parties, by way of decreeing the suit, the defendants are hereby restrained from holding demonstrations/dharnas within a distance of 100 meters from the office premises of the Director subject to the condition that they would choose a time when no classes are held in the vicinity nor would create such situation that may vitiate the atmosphere of the educational Institution.

13. The suit is decreed in above terms.