Public offices are symbols of governance and accountability. They exist to serve citizens, handle grievances, and implement public policies. Yet, a crucial constitutional question persists—does every citizen have an unrestricted right to enter and visit public offices at will?
This issue was recently examined in depth by the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in Kishor Jairam Chakole v. Western Coalfields Ltd. & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 1627 of 2025, decided on 6 October 2025). The Court clarified that while citizens are entitled to access government institutions for legitimate purposes, this right is not absolute. Administrative order, discipline, and security justify reasonable restrictions on public entry.
The decision reaffirms an important constitutional principle—fundamental rights coexist with duties and boundaries, and civic participation must align with lawful conduct.
Background of the Case
The Petitioner’s Profile
The petitioner, Shri Kishor Jairam Chakole, a 58-year-old social activist and former employee of Western Coalfields Limited (WCL), claimed to act in the interest of workers and citizens. After his termination in 2004, he frequently visited WCL offices in Nagpur to assist aggrieved employees, lodge complaints, and raise concerns about alleged irregularities.
The Dispute
On 7 October 2024, WCL declared him persona non grata—an unwelcome person—and barred his entry into all WCL premises for three years.
The company alleged that Chakole:
- Filed baseless and malicious complaints against senior officials.
- Violated visitor entry protocols and disturbed office functioning.
- Created a security concern by repeatedly visiting without authorisation.
The petitioner challenged this order before the Bombay High Court, contending that it infringed upon his fundamental right to move freely, express grievances, and participate in public matters.
Issue
- Do citizens possess an absolute, unrestricted right to enter and visit government or public sector offices, or can such access be lawfully restricted in the interest of public order and administrative discipline?
This question required balancing citizens’ constitutional freedoms against institutional autonomy and security within public offices.
Arguments Presented
Petitioner’s Contentions
Appearing in person, Chakole argued that:
- The order declaring him persona non grata was arbitrary and unconstitutional.
- His visits served public interest and sought accountability from a state-owned enterprise.
- The restriction violated Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech) and Article 19(1)(d) (freedom of movement).
- No evidence established that his conduct posed a genuine security threat or disruption.
- The company’s action amounted to retaliation for his activism and whistle-blowing efforts.
Respondent’s Submissions
Counsel Ms Gauri Venkatraman for WCL argued that:
- The petitioner’s visits hampered routine administration and intimidated staff.
- He habitually made unsubstantiated allegations, undermining the work environment.
- WCL, as a public-sector employer, had the authority to regulate access to its offices for operational safety.
- Prior warnings and revocations of earlier bans had failed to reform the petitioner’s behaviour.
- The Union of India supported WCL’s stance, emphasising that the right to movement does not imply an open-ended license to enter secured premises.
Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
The Bench of Justice Anil S. Kilor and Justice Rajnish R. Vyas upheld the WCL order, dismissing the writ petition. The reasoning unfolded through several important constitutional and administrative findings.
1. Meaning and Application of “Persona Non Grata”
The Court explained that persona non grata literally means an “unwelcome person.” While rooted in diplomatic practice, in non-diplomatic contexts, it denotes the withdrawal of permission or acceptance of entry to a person whose presence disrupts institutional functioning.
Thus, WCL’s action was not punitive but preventive and administrative, aimed at maintaining discipline and protecting officials from harassment.
2. No Employer-Employee Relationship
The Court noted that Chakole’s employment with WCL had terminated two decades earlier. Since there was no subsisting relationship of master and servant, he had no vested right to access the company premises. His status as a former employee did not entitle him to re-enter office spaces or interfere in daily operations.
3. Repeated Misconduct and Prior Warnings
Evidence showed that Chakole had been declared persona non grata twice before—first in 2013 and again in 2021. Although the 2021 order was revoked conditionally, he continued to breach those conditions, prompting the 2024 ban.
The Bench concluded that such persistent behaviour demonstrated bad faith, not bona fide activism. The restriction, therefore, was justified.
4. No Fundamental Right to Harass Public Officials
Relying on the precedent in Sagar Hanumanta Daunde v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3711), the Court reaffirmed:
“No individual has a fundamental right to harass public officers performing lawful duty by repeatedly filing complaints and appeals on the same subject matter or casting personal aspersions against them.”
The judgment emphasised that civic oversight must not transform into institutional intimidation. Officers performing public duties deserve protection from baseless targeting and defamatory conduct.
5. Reasonable Restrictions Under the Constitution
The Bench observed that even fundamental rights are not absolute. Article 19(5) allows the State to impose reasonable restrictions on the right to move freely “in the interests of the general public.”
Thus, while citizens can seek access to officials for legitimate reasons, this access is subject to administrative control and security concerns. The petitioner’s conduct, having crossed those boundaries, warranted restriction.
6. Availability of Alternative Remedies
The Court clarified that Chakole could still exercise his rights through lawful channels—by filing online complaints, sending representations by post, or approaching competent forums. Denying physical entry did not deprive him of all avenues of grievance redressal.
7. Protection of Public Servants’ Dignity
Implicitly invoking Article 21, the Court underscored that public servants too enjoy the right to dignity and safety at the workplace. Continuous harassment, intimidation, or public humiliation by individuals masquerading as activists infringes this right. Administrative authorities must protect their staff from such abuse.
Constitutional Dimensions
Article 19(1)(a): Freedom of Speech and Expression
Citizens can freely voice complaints, but this right does not shield false accusations or disruptive behaviour. Legitimate criticism is welcome; malicious harassment is not.
The Court maintained that freedom of expression cannot override public order and workplace discipline.
Article 19(1)(d): Freedom of Movement
Freedom to move throughout India does not imply an unfettered right of access to all government buildings. Entry restrictions, when applied uniformly and reasonably, serve the public interest.
Article 14: Equality Before Law
The doctrine of equality requires non-arbitrariness, not unrestricted freedom. So long as restrictions are imposed following reasoned administrative necessity, they do not violate Article 14.
Article 21: Right to Life and Dignity
By ensuring protection of government employees from harassment, the Court indirectly upheld the right to live with dignity for both citizens and officials.
Balancing Public Rights and Administrative Order
| Citizens’ Rights | Administrative Duties |
|---|---|
| Right to seek information and redress grievances | Duty to maintain order, safety, and efficiency |
| Freedom of movement and expression | Authority to regulate entry and prevent disruption |
| Participatory democracy and activism | Protection of staff from intimidation or misuse of access |
| Transparency and accountability | Confidentiality and security of internal operations |
The judgment carefully balanced these competing interests, ensuring that neither public participation nor official integrity is compromised.
Precedent and Judicial Consistency
The reasoning in Chakole aligns with earlier Indian jurisprudence:
Sagar Hanumanta Daunde and Another v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Another (2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3711) confirmed that persistent, malicious complaints can justify restricted access to offices.
Kishor Jairam Chakole v. Western Coalfields Limited and Others (W.P. No. 2741 of 2013) – an earlier petition by the same individual, where the Court already held that he could not demand entry as of right.
State of U.P. v. Kaushailiya (1964 SCR 1006) – affirmed that freedoms under Article 19 are subject to reasonable regulation for maintaining public order.
This continuity demonstrates the judiciary’s consistent stance that rights must operate within lawful parameters.
Key Highlights of the Decision
Justice Anil S. Kilor and Justice Rajnish R. Vyas stated:
“No doubt, petitioner has right to file complaints, pointing out the illegality, but at the same time, it cannot be forgotten that filing, frivolous complaints and repeated complaints burdens the public officers. Petitioner cannot claim that he has absolute right to visit respondent’s offices. The petitioner can file complaints online, through post and also seek information by taking help of technology.
The right of a citizen to move freely throughout territory of India, is also required to be considered from the angle of reasonable restrictions which are recognised by the Constitution. But at the same time, the petitioner cannot be given free hand to visit the public offices which would certainly affect the public administration. Even fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India are not absolute and are subjected to reasonable restrictions.”
Broader Policy Implications
- No Absolute Right of Physical Access: Government and public-sector offices are places of work, not open civic spaces. Entry must be purpose-driven and authorised, ensuring that administrative machinery functions smoothly.
- Encouragement of Digital and Written Complaints: With the advancement of e-governance, citizens can file grievances online, eliminating the need for physical visits that may disrupt daily operations. This shift also enhances transparency and traceability.
- Accountability with Responsibility: Activism and social engagement remain pillars of democracy, but they carry responsibility and restraint. The judgment signals that activism cannot degenerate into a personal vendetta.
- Institutional Duty to Ensure Fair Access: While restricting disruptive individuals, authorities must also avoid misuse of power. Genuine complainants must not be silenced. The Court clarified that authorities cannot refuse to entertain new or reasonable complaints, even from previously restricted individuals.
Conclusion
The decision in Kishor Jairam Chakole v. Western Coalfields Ltd. (2025) crystallises a crucial democratic understanding:
Citizens do not possess an unrestricted or absolute right to visit public offices.
While every individual enjoys constitutional freedoms of speech, movement, and participation, these liberties are subject to reasonable administrative regulation. The State must preserve transparency and accessibility, but cannot allow its institutions to become arenas of harassment or disorder.
The judgment serves as a reminder that democracy thrives not in chaos but in balanced accountability—where citizens question authority with respect, and authorities respond with openness, bounded by law. Public offices exist to serve the people, but service must occur in an environment of order, security, and mutual dignity.