The Delhi High Court has dismissed an injunction application filed by Independent News Service Pvt Ltd (INSPL) to restrain Sucherita Kukreti, its channel India TV's newsreader, from joining any rival television channel till November 30, 2019. Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw observed, "Granting any interim injunction would amount to restraining the defendant from doing what she has been doing for the last 14 years and what she is best known to do and has skill to do. Ad-interim injunction if granted for the period till 30th November 2019 would amount to killing the goodwill acquired by the defendant in the last 14 years and which loss cannot be monetarily compensated to the defendant in the event of it being ultimately found in the suit that the plaintiff was not entitled to such injunction." Ms. Kukreti resigned from India TV on December 13, 2018, even though the term of her job contract ended only in November this year.
She had been entering into successive contracts of three years each with India TV since December 1, 2004, agreeing not to associate with a competing channel during the term of the agreement. However, she had declared on Twitter on January 20 that she had joined Republic Bharat. India TV then approached Delhi High Court on January 25, demanding that she be restrained from taking up work or allowing her name, image, or voice for any other news channel till the expiry of her employment contract. India TV contended that she was a prominent face of their news channel, which had invested huge money and resources in building her "image, reputation, and goodwill" over the past 14 years. It has further sought recovery of damages amounting to Rs 2,00,10,000 from Ms. Kukreti for breach of the job agreement.
The court, however, emphasized on the damage that such an injunction would cause to Ms. Kukreti's career, observing, "Benching a professional for as long as 10 to 11 months can be devastating, capable of inflicting permanent damage affecting mental and physical health and future prospects of a professional. This is more so in the case of Newscasters/News Presenters to whom the adage "out of sight, out of mind" would also apply." It went on to hold that an injunction would constitute a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as the right to personal liberty includes the liberty to practice any profession. "The ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India ensuring Protection of Life and Personal Liberty to all persons has over the years been expanding. Personal Liberty would include the liberty to practice a vocation or profession and being not deprived thereof, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary and which agreement Section 27 of the Contract Act declares as void. Grant of any ad-interim injunction would also be in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India," it explained.
The court also relied on Article 51A of the Constitution of India, which spells out the duty of every citizen to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavor and achievements. Ms. Kukreti, it then asserted, cannot be restrained from striving towards individual excellence in the profession/vocation of her choice. Besides, the court opined that the loss from Ms. Kukreti's breach of contract can definitely be measured in monetary terms. As for the skill and excellence acquired by her, it ruled that the same is her personal acquisition and that India TV cannot have proprietary rights or interest in such acquisition of excellence by her, even if it was with the channel's contribution. The application was, therefore, dismissed. The matter has been listed on July 11, 2019, for framing of issues, if any.
My view
This judgment/order has many implications on people joining competing organizations.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
3180She had been entering into successive contracts of three years each with India TV since December 1, 2004, agreeing not to associate with a competing channel during the term of the agreement. However, she had declared on Twitter on January 20 that she had joined Republic Bharat. India TV then approached Delhi High Court on January 25, demanding that she be restrained from taking up work or allowing her name, image, or voice for any other news channel till the expiry of her employment contract. India TV contended that she was a prominent face of their news channel, which had invested huge money and resources in building her "image, reputation, and goodwill" over the past 14 years. It has further sought recovery of damages amounting to Rs 2,00,10,000 from Ms. Kukreti for breach of the job agreement.
The court, however, emphasized on the damage that such an injunction would cause to Ms. Kukreti's career, observing, "Benching a professional for as long as 10 to 11 months can be devastating, capable of inflicting permanent damage affecting mental and physical health and future prospects of a professional. This is more so in the case of Newscasters/News Presenters to whom the adage "out of sight, out of mind" would also apply." It went on to hold that an injunction would constitute a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as the right to personal liberty includes the liberty to practice any profession. "The ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India ensuring Protection of Life and Personal Liberty to all persons has over the years been expanding. Personal Liberty would include the liberty to practice a vocation or profession and being not deprived thereof, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary and which agreement Section 27 of the Contract Act declares as void. Grant of any ad-interim injunction would also be in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India," it explained.
The court also relied on Article 51A of the Constitution of India, which spells out the duty of every citizen to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavor and achievements. Ms. Kukreti, it then asserted, cannot be restrained from striving towards individual excellence in the profession/vocation of her choice. Besides, the court opined that the loss from Ms. Kukreti's breach of contract can definitely be measured in monetary terms. As for the skill and excellence acquired by her, it ruled that the same is her personal acquisition and that India TV cannot have proprietary rights or interest in such acquisition of excellence by her, even if it was with the channel's contribution. The application was, therefore, dismissed. The matter has been listed on July 11, 2019, for framing of issues, if any.
My view
This judgment/order has many implications on people joining competing organizations.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Yes, Mr. Rao, I am in complete agreement with your observation.
The implications of the judgment, as I am able to assess, are:
(1) The employee has to honor her contract of employment in all respects, including its mode of termination.
(2) The employer has to be fairly reasonable in claiming liquidated damages as well as seeking interim relief from the Court.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The implications of the judgment, as I am able to assess, are:
(1) The employee has to honor her contract of employment in all respects, including its mode of termination.
(2) The employer has to be fairly reasonable in claiming liquidated damages as well as seeking interim relief from the Court.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Implications are spelled out in a nutshell in the above post by the learned member Umakanthan.
Employees need to honor their written agreements, while employers cannot be overbearing and stifle the rights of employees to change jobs and restrict job mobility.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Employees need to honor their written agreements, while employers cannot be overbearing and stifle the rights of employees to change jobs and restrict job mobility.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mr. Nathrao Thanks for sharing an important judgement Shailesh Parikh 99 98 97 10 65 Vadodara
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thank you, Mr. Nathrao, for sharing this judgment. This will definitely have implications in future cases.
An interesting thing I noted was the observation of the Courts, wherein they said, "As for the skill and excellence acquired by her, it ruled that the same is her personal acquisition and that India TV cannot have proprietary rights or interest in such acquisition of excellence by her, even if it was with the channel's contribution."
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
An interesting thing I noted was the observation of the Courts, wherein they said, "As for the skill and excellence acquired by her, it ruled that the same is her personal acquisition and that India TV cannot have proprietary rights or interest in such acquisition of excellence by her, even if it was with the channel's contribution."
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.