High court relief for MG varsity employee

KOCHI: An employee speaking out in social media against the institution he or she is working falls within right to free speech as long as it is not against the collective interest of the institution, says the high court.
The observation was made by Justice A Muhamed Mustaque in a judgment on a petition filed by Anil Kumar A P, an employee of Mahatma Gandhi University (MGU), through advocate Elvin Peter PJ.Anil was suspended almost 60 days ago for a social media post against MGU officials.
While directing to reinstate Anil, the court said in the judgment, “Servitude is an outlook of an individual and not a governing norm in a public institution. Discipline is a norm. Discipline and servitude are to be distinguished. If an employee speaks out in the social media in a general perspective which is not inconsistent with the collective interest of the institution, that is part of his right of free speech. No authority should expect one to be silent. Survival of public institution depends upon how it accounts for democratic values. Free expression is the corner stone of democratic value. Every functionary of public power therefore must command liberty to their constituents.”
The right to freedom of speech is not absolute and when the individual right of an employee becomes repugnant to the collective interest of the institution, the individual must fall within the lines of collective interest, the court said.
Further, the court said individuals identified with institutions are in fact part of the institution’s identity. If the employee’s expressions breach the limit or boundary and it tarnishes the prestige of the institution, such tendency must be desisted through actions, the court added.
The court directed for reinstating Anil after noticing that he has been under suspension for nearly 60 days and that there is no scope for him to interfere with any materials related to the ongoing inquiry as what could be gathered as a misconduct is already there on his social media postings. The legality of the suspension has not been considered in the judgment, the court clarified, while restraining the petitioner from any similar social media postings until the disciplinary enquiry concludes.