HC upholds RKM decision to deny job over social media posts
Times of India | 2 July 2026
Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday upheld the Ramakrishna Mission’s decision to deny appointment to an assistant professor recommended by the West Bengal College Service Commission (WBCSC), citing his social media posts against the order, its monks and religion.
A division bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md Shabbar Rashidi set aside a Sept 2025 order of a single bench that had directed the Mission to appoint Tamal Dasgupta as a faculty member at Narendrapur Ramakrishna Mission Residential College within four weeks, subject to his deleting the posts.
The division bench held that the Mission’s governing body was justified in finding Dasgupta unsuitable for appointment.
“Every person has the fundamental right to profess his or her religion. The right to profess such religion, however, cannot be construed to mean that such a person is permitted to hurt the faith or the religious sentiments of any other person. The Facebook posts of the writ petitioner have the propensity to hurt the sentiments of other religions,” the bench observed.
Rejecting Dasgupta’s contention that the decision was arbitrary because the posts predated his recommendation by the WBCSC, the court held that the Mission had taken its decision in the interest of the institution.
“The governing body... has taken a decision regarding the unsuitability of the writ petitioner in the interest of the educational institution, on the basis of the views of the writ petitioner expressed on social media platforms. Therefore, the decision... cannot be said to be implausible. Once such a decision cannot be classified as implausible, it cannot be held to be arbitrary,” the bench said.
Dasgupta had argued that the Mission’s decision violated his fundamental rights to freedom of speech and to practise his religion. The court rejected the contention, holding that the decision related only to his appointment and did not curtail either right.
“The college has neither prevented the writ petitioner from expressing his views nor restrained him from practising his religion,” the bench said.