The document summarizes a case about the constitutionality of Section 36-AD of the Banking Regulation Act of 1949. [1] Section 36-AD prohibited obstructing access to banks, demonstrations within banks, and acts undermining depositors' confidence. [2] The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the section as violating the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression. [3] The court dismissed the petition and upheld the section, finding that only violent demonstrations and deliberate undermining of confidence without reasonable excuse could be punished.

1. BANKING CASE
PRESENTATION (1)
SUBMITTED BY: KRITIKA GUPTA
BANKING AND FINANCE

2. M. RAMU V. GOVERNMENT
OF INDIA ( AIR 1970 MAD
331)
THIS CASE IS BASICALLYON SECTION 36-ADOF
BANKING REGULATION ACT, 1949( HEREIN
REFERRED AS ACT)

3. SYNOPSIS
 BACKGROUND
 FURTHER ELABORATION
 FACTS
 ISSUES
 JUDGEMENT REFFERED
 CONCLUSION

4. BACKGROUND
 SEC.36-AD OF ACT TALKS ABOUT PUNISHMENT FOR
CERTAIN ACTIVITIES IN BANKING COMPANIES ,
FURTHE,
1) NO PERSON SHALL-a)
OBSTRUCTING ANY PERSON FROM LAWFULLY
ENTERING OR LEAVING A BANK
b) HOLDING DEMONSTRATION WITHIN A BANK
c) ACTING UNDER MINE DEPOSITORS CONFIDENCE
IN A BANK
2) IN CONTRAVENTION OF AFORESAID PROVISION
WOULD ATTRACT THE PUNISHMENT:-
a) IMPRISONMENT MAY EXTEND TO SIX MONTHS, OR,
b) FINE MAY EXTEND TO 100 RUPEES ,OR, BOTH

5. FURTHER ELABORATION OF
SECTION:
 Section merely taking about the obstruction in
case where public interest was suffered.
 At the time of draft prohibition with respect to
demonstration is limited to some distance from
the office.
 Ultimately, after many criticism held that
demonstration within office or place of businees
will be held punishable.
 Clause (a) is mere repetition of IPC provisions
that is wrongful restraint and confinement.

6. M. RAMU AND ANR. V.
GOVT. OF INDIA& ORS.
( AIR 1970 MAD. 331)-
BY , KAILASAM, J.,
FACTS OF THE CASE ARE HIGHLIGHTEN

7. FACTS OF THE CASE
 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ( HEREIN AS GOI)
INTRODUCED IN PARLIAMENT BANKING
LAWS AMENDMENT BILL ON 23-2-1967
 OBJECTS OF BILL ARE:-
1) TO MAKE EFFECTIVE LINK BETWEEN
INDUSTRIAL HOUSES AND BANK.
2) INTRODUCTION OF BANKS TOWARDS
INDUSTRY AND BUSINESS IS TO BE
CHANGED AND CREDIT FACILITY SHOULD
BE THERE.
3) TO ARREST MONOPOLISTIC TRENDS.
4) TO SEE COMPLIANCE OF ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT.

8.  BILL WAS PASSED AND ASSENT WAS RECEIVED
FROM PRESIDENT OF INDIA ON 2-1-1969.
 BILL WAS BROUGHT INTO FORCE THROUGHOUT
INDIA FROM 1-2-1969.
 THERE IN THIS BILL SUCH MENTIONED
OBECTIVES WERE RELATED TO SECTION 36-AD
OF ACT
 WRIT PETITION WAS FILED BY EMPLOYEE OF
THEINDIAN OVERSEAS BANK LTD, MADRAS FOR
ISSUE OF MANDAMUS TO STRIKE DOWN THE
PROVISION OF SECTION 36-AD OF ACT AS IT IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ILLEGAL.

9. ISSUES
 WHETHER SECTION 36-AD IS VIOLATIVE OF
ARTICLE 19(1) OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
WHICH IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT?
 WHETHER ARTICLE 19(1) WOULD INCLUDE
RIGHT TO OBSTRUCT A PERSON FROM
ENTERING INTO THE PLACE OF BUSINESS ?
 WHETHER ANY DEMONSTARTION WHICH
IS VIOLENT WILL BE PUNISHABLE?
 WHETHER ACTING IN ANY MANNER
CALCULATED TO UNDERMINE THE
CONFIDENCE OF DEPOSITORS VIOLATING
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT?

10. HOW THE ARGUMENT AND DECISION
TOOK PLACE
 REGARDING FIRST ISSUE PETITONER CLAIMS THAT
IF THEY ARE PREVENTED FROM PEACEFUL
PICKETING OR HOLDING PEACEFULL
DEMONSTARTION WILL LEAD TO OBSTRUCTION
WOULD AFFECT THERE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.
 LEARNED SESSION INTERPRET WORD ‘
DEMONSTARATION’ IN KAMESHWAR PRASAD V.
STATE OF BIHAR ( 1962 SCR SUPL(3) 369) I.E
VISIBLE IDEAS TO OTHERS TO WHOM IT IS
INTENDED TO BE CONVEYED.

11.  THEREFORE, DEMONSTRATION WHICH LEADS TO
DISTURBANCE OF PUBLIC TRANQUILITY WILL BE
PUNSHABLE AND HENCE NOT BE VIOLATIVE OF
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.
 SO FAR AS SEC. 36-AD(1)(b) SAYS ANY DEMONSTARTION
WHICH IS VIOLENT IS VIOLATION FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.
 IN PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK LTD. V. ALL INDIA
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK EMPLOYEES FEDERATION
( 1960 SCR(1) 806), THAT IN CASE OF PEACEFUL PEN
DOEN STRIKE IS NOT AN OFFENCE AND NOT PUNSHABLE
AS WELL.

12.  THEREFORE SECTION MAKES IT CLEAR THAT WHEN
DEMONSTRATION IS VIOLENT THEN ONLY IT WILL BE
PUNISHABLE AND NOT OTHERWISE.
 NOW WITH RESPECT TO SECTION 36-AD(1)(c) , ‘FREEDOM
OF SPEECH’ NOT INCLUDE MANNER OF CALCULATED OF
CONFIDENCE OF DEPOSITORS WITHOUT REASONABLE
EXCUSE
 BUT BASICALLY ACT MAKES IT PUNSHABLE WHEN
REASONABLE EXCUSE IS NOT THERE AND THERE
SECTION 36-AD(2) ATTRACTS.

13. CONCLUSION
LASTLY , THE LEARNED COUNSEL
SUBMITTED THAT THE PREAMBLE
AND THE OJECTS OF THE AMENDING
ACT DO NOT JUSTIFY THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36-AD.
HENCE,IT WAS SAID IT IS NOT
VIOLATIVE OF FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHT AND THE WRIT PETITION WAS
DISMISSED.