Madras HC Quashes Loan Condition Seeking Apology From Applicant For Sticking Posters Against Bank, Says It's A Legitimate Mode Of Protest

Justice Murali Shankar noted that the Nationalised Banks could not treat a loan applicant, especially a student as their servant or a person obeying their orders. The court added that even if it was accepted that the student's father was the office bearer of the NGO which had protested against the Bank, it was not a ground for the Bank to seek an apology from the student who had nothing to do with the protest.

“Even assuming that the petitioner's father was the then office bearer of that NGO, pasting of posters condemning for non granting of educational loan cannot be taken as against the bank and that cannot be a ground for seeking apology from the petitioner, who has nothing to do with the pasting of posters. A nationalized Bank cannot be act so as to treat the loan applicant that too a student as their servant or as person at their command,” the court said.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Sibiga Dharshini against the bank's pre-release condition. Dharshini was admitted to the Bachelor of Naturopathy and Yogic Science (BNYS) medical degree and after paying the first year's fee, she applied for an educational loan from the bank under Vidya Jyothi Education Loan.

During this period, an NGO had pasted posters in the locality condemning the Bank Manager for not sanctioning educational loans to the deserving poor and cautioned the bank to not create a bad name forcing them to agitate. Later, when the bank issued a loan sanction order, it imposed a pre-release condition asking the petitioner to obtain an apology from Dharshini for pasting posters against the bank.

The court noted that publishing posters and distributing handbills was a recognized fundamental right as held by the Apex Court. The court noted that the posters had condemned the action of the Branch Manager for not granting educational loans to deserving poor students and no allegations were made against the Bank Manager or other officials personally.

The court observed that in a democracy, every person had a right to raise their voice against the omission or commission on the part of the government machinery but could not cross the Lakshman Rekha by using offensive or defamatory language. In the present case, the court added that the wording in the poster could not be considered as defamatory against the officials or against the bank.

“In a democratic society any one can raise voice against the omission or commission on the part of the official of the Government machinery or the public sector concerns, but they should not cross the Lakshman Rekha between the words of condemnation and abusive, offensive and defamatory language,” the court observed.

Thus, the court ruled that the bank's condition could not be sustained and quashed the same. the court further directed the bank to proceed with the sanction letter excluding the condition.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.M.Karthikeya Venkitachalapathy

Counsel for Respondent: Mr.M.Prakash, Additional Government Pleader, Mr.N.Dilipkumar

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 302

Case Title: P.Sibiga Dharshini v The District Collector and Another

Case No: W.P(MD)No.11541 of 2021