Is the right to strike compatible with the essential nature of banking services? Critically analyse.

Article 19(1)(c) protects the right to form unions. However, in T.K. Rangarajan (2003) the Supreme Court held that there is no fundamental right to strike [4]. The bank unions' repeated protests for a five-day week keep raising this question. Their latest was a three-day nationwide strike, deferred on 27 September 2026 [1]. The two can coexist only if the strike stays a regulated, last-resort tool.

Why strikes can be compatible

• Bargaining lever: The strike threat got the Indian Banks' Association (IBA) to set up a high-level committee with the United Forum of Bank Unions (UFBU) on the five-day week [1].
• Grievance-redress failure: The five-day-week proposal has been pending with the Finance Ministry since 2024 [5]. "Residual issues" from the 8.3.2024 minutes are still unresolved [1]. When talks stall, protest becomes the unions' only remaining signal.
• Regulated, not banned: The Industrial Relations Code, 2020 allows strikes but requires 14 days' notice and bars them while conciliation is under way [3].
• Digital cushion: UPI, ATMs and online banking soften the impact of short disruptions for urban customers.

Why banking's essential nature limits strikes

• Public-service character: The Government publicly appealed to employees of public sector banks (PSBs) and Regional Rural Banks (RRBs) to keep services running [2]. This shows the State treats banking as an essential service.
• Unequal burden: Rural, elderly and cash-dependent customers lose access to pensions, wages and cheque clearing. Digital channels cannot replace a branch for them.
• Judicial stance: Rangarajan held that strikes lead to chaos and maladministration, and that employees have no moral or equitable right to strike [4].
• Strike fatigue: The unions deferred a strike in March 2025 [6], struck in January 2026 [7], and threatened again in September 2026 [1]. Each round erodes public trust and harms customers.

Way forward

• The Department of Financial Services (DFS) should give a time-bound, conditional decision on the five-day week and join the IBA–UFBU committee.
• A minimum-service norm during strikes, covering cash, clearing and pensions.
• Binding arbitration for demands that have stayed pending for a long time.

In short, strikes and essential banking are not inherently incompatible, but the right to strike must be proportionate and used only after other options are exhausted. Faster decisions, reliable implementation of past agreements and guaranteed minimum services would make strikes unnecessary. This would uphold both workers' dignity under Article 19 and citizens' access to finance under SDG 8.10.