Interesting Observations In Kerala High Court's Judgment Upholding PM's Photo On Vaccination Certificate

The Kerala High Court has recently dismissed the petition that had sought for removal of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's photograph from the Covid-19 vaccination certificates. 

There were two prayers in the plea: 

(i) to declare that affixing the photograph of the Prime Minister of India in the COVID-19 Vaccination Certificate of the petitioner is an infringement of his fundamental right. 

(ii) to issue the petitioner a COVID-19 vaccination certificate without the photograph of the Prime Minister in it, along with access to the COWIN platform, to generate such a certificate when needed.

The plea was filed through Advocate Ajit Joy and Assistant Solicitor General of India S. Manu countered the pleadings and urged for the matter to be dismissed with costs. 

Here are a few key observations from the sensational judgment delivered by Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan: 

1. 'Fantastic' Arguments Raised By Petitioner

The petitioner had produced screenshots of the landing page of the Cowin site, the Health Ministry website, the landing page of the Aarogya Setu app and the Cabinet Minister's tweet on the eve of the Prime Minister's birthday, all of which contained Modi's photograph.

"Even though the petitioner produced Exts P1, P3, P4, and P7 to show that the photograph of the Hon'ble Prime Minister is there in all those documents, he confines his prayer for removing the photographs of the Hon'ble Prime Minister from Ext P2 vaccination certificate of the petitioner. According to my opinion, the petitioner is raising fantastic arguments to support his contentions."

The Court also refers to several other arguments raised by the petitioner as 'fantastic' in a sarcastic tone which have been mentioned later in the report (or refer para 11, 12 of the judgment).

2. So What If The Prime Minister's Photo Is On The Certificate?

The Court opined that when the country managed to procure and manufacture vaccines at such trying times, there was nothing wrong with the photo of the Prime Minister being affixed on the vaccination certificate.

"Our country is facing the Covid-19 pandemic for the last one and half years. The country faced 1st and 2nd waves of the pandemic. Because of the hard work of our experts in the vaccine field, our country was able to produce a vaccine for this pandemic. Moreover, vaccines manufactured in other countries are also available in the market. The population of India is now nearing 140 crores. The only way to eliminate the COVID-19 pandemic is vaccination by all the citizens. In such a situation, while issuing a certificate for COVID-19 vaccination, if the Prime Minister of India gave a message with his photograph that with the help of medicine and  strict control, India will defeat COVID-19, what is wrong with it?" 

3. Are You Not Living In This Country? Court To Petitioner  

The petitioner had argued that the photograph of the Prime Minister on his vaccination certificate was an intrusion to his privacy. To this the Court responded:

"What a fantastic argument! Is he not living in this country? The Prime Minister of India is not a person who entered the parliament house by breaking the roof of the parliament building. He came to power because of the mandate of the people. The Indian democracy is being praised by the world. The Prime Minister is elected because he got people's mandate...Once the election is over and the majority of people gave a mandate to a political party which leads to the election of  Prime Minister, he is not the leader of that political party but he is a leader of the country." 

4. Be Proud Of Our Prime Minister; Respect Him

According to the Bench, the Prime Minister ought to be the pride of every citizen: 

"...once a Prime Minister is elected as per the constitution, he is the Hon'ble Prime Minister of our country and that post should be the pride of every citizen, whether the Prime Minister is "X" or "Y"."

On similar lines, the Court added: 

"Till the next general election, he will be the Prime Minister of India...Therefore, according to me, it is the duty of the citizens to respect the Prime Minister of India, and of course, they can differ on the policies of the Government and even the political stand of the Prime Minister...the citizen need not be ashamed to carry a vaccination certificate with the photograph of the Prime Minister with a morale boosting message, especially in this pandemic situation." 

At a later part of the judgment, it was reiterated: 

"The petitioner should study the respect to be given to the Prime Minister and others by watching at least the parliamentary proceedings, which are available live on National TV. The opposition leaders will object to the policies of the Government with vehemence. But they still address the Prime Minister as the 'Hon'ble Prime Minister'."

5. No Words; Only Pity For the Petitioner

The Court opined that the petitioner being a person who is well-versed with the history of the country,should not have raised such arguments in his plea and found it 'pitiful':

"When the country is facing a pandemic and at that time, the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India, gave a message in the vaccination certificate with his photograph to boost the morale of the citizen, I do not understand why the petitioner says that it is an intrusion to his privacy. This argument is to be rejected in limine and according to me, these kinds of arguments ought not to have been raised by citizens of the country who know about our nation and its history. The petitioner claims that he is the State Co-ordinator of the National Commission for Peoples Right to  Information. If the petitioner is coordinating this type of campaign, I have nothing to say but to pity him." 

6. Petitioner Works At An Institution Named After Another PM

"The petitioner claims to be an extension faculty of Kerala Institute of Local Administration and State Level Master Coach of the Jawaharlal Nehru Leadership Institute, New Delhi. While the counsel for the petitioner was arguing the case, I asked him why his client is working as a State Level Master Coach of Jawaharlal Nehru Leadership Institute because of the name of our former Prime Minister Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru is there in the name of that institute. But there is no proper answer to the same."

7. Just Another Publicity Litigation

On the strength of all the aforementioned observations, the Court deemed it appropriate to dismiss the PIL as yet another publicity stunt:

"According to my opinion, from the conduct of the petitioner, it is clear that he is trying to do a publicity oriented litigation instead of genuine litigation with a cause." 

8. No Compelled Viewing 

The petitioner had brought in interesting arguments in his plea including the concepts of compelled speech, listening and viewing. He had contended that by affixing the photo of the Prime Minister, he was subjected to compelled viewing. 

"The fantastic argument of the petitioner is that the photograph of the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India with a morale boosting message in the vaccination certificate, when the COVID-19 pandemic is all around us even now is a compelled viewing of the Prime Minister's photograph! I have no words to the petitioner to these types of arguments." 

The Court added that the petitioner had not gone through the article of Caroline Mala Corbin in full. Although the article was produced before the Court, the Judge accessed it online so that in case there was any point in it, the petitioner should not suffer solely for the non-production of the same.

After persuing the said article, the Court noted that it had explicitly mentioned that the State can override the listener's free speech rights and impose a viewpoint based message if the State's interest is compelling.

"Here is a case where the entire country and the world is facing a pandemic situation and in such a situation, the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India is giving a morale boosting message to his fellow citizens through vaccine certificate :- "Medicine and strict control by the citizens will defeat COVID-19". At any stretch of the imagination, it cannot come within the four corners of right against 'compelled listening or viewing'."

9. No Captive Audience: Petitioner Should Avert His Eyes From The Photograph

It was noted that even as per the article, 'compelled listening or viewing' is only when the Government forces its arguments or information onto unwilling recipients. Therefore, the principle against compelled listening is applicable only if there is a captive audience.

"...if the petitioner does not want to see his Prime Minister or if he is ashamed to see the picture of his Prime Minister, he can avert his eyes to the bottom side of the vaccine certificate. Therefore, the argument by the petitioner that the photograph of the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India with a morale boosting message to his fellow citizens through the vaccination certificate is a compelled viewing of the photograph of the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India is to be rejected." 

10. To Display Prime Minister's Photo On Certificate Each Country's Choice

When the petitioner argued that no other country was issuing vaccination certificates carrying the photographs of their Prime Ministers, the Court responded that to exhibit the photo of their PM was a choice of each individual country. 

"Yet another contention is based on Ext P9 series vaccination certificates issued to the citizens of other countries in which there are no photographs of their Prime Minister. It deserves no answer according to me. Whether the photographs of the Prime Minister of a particular country is to be exhibited in their vaccination certificate is to be decided by that country."

11. Not All Politicians Are Corrupt

The Court further opined that the petitioner was influenced by the general notion that all political leaders are corrupt while filing this petition:

"There is a general trend to a section of the citizens of our country that the political leaders are all corrupt people and they cannot be believed. I think, from this concept, these types of arguments are coming into the mind of the petitioner. But can anyone generalise like that? What is wrong with politicians? Since there is a small percentage of politicians are having a bad history, the entire politicians need not be ignored. They are the builders of our nation with innovative ideas." 

12. Petitioner Should Study Indian History To See How Opposition Has Been Treated

The Bench recalled facets of parliamentary democracy to portray that political opponents have always been respected in the country.

"The petitioner should study the history of Indian democracy...The first Prime Minister of India, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru came into power in the first General election in India with a massive majority. The 2nd largest party after the Indian National Congress was the Communist Party of India with 16 members which is not enough for getting the post of opposition leader. Even then, the Panditji accepted the leader of the Communist Party of India as the opposition leader and used to hear him patiently in the parliament."

It was further added:

"It is also reminded by the Hon'ble former Prime Minister Sri Atal Bihari Vajpayee in his speech that one of the ministers of a country observed that "Indian democracy is strange". Yes, Indian democracy is strange...when the Prime Minister is selected, the country will forget its political differences and respect the Prime Minister. As Bapuji said, the winner should know that he won the race because there is a loser... There ends the dispute. Mutual respect is part of democracy. If that is not there, that will be the black day of democracy." 

13. Frivolous Contentions

Justice Kunhikrishnan took the stand that all the contenioned raised by the petitioner were frivolous and therefore liable to be dismissed:

"According to my opinion, this is a frivolous petition filed with ulterior motives and I have a strong doubt that there is political agenda also to the petitioner. According to me, this is a publicity oriented litigation. Therefore, this is a fit case that is to be dismissed with a heavy cost."  

Accordingly, a cost of rupees one lakh was imposed on the petitioner. 

14. Costs Too Heavy For A Citizen, But Society Should Learn

The Court acknowledged that the costs imposed was hefty as far as a citizen is concerned. However, it was found necessary to refrain similar pleas with frivolous contentions reaching the Court.

"...the society also should know that if frivolous petitions are filed, the Court will not accept the same. Thousands of convicted persons in criminal cases are in jail in our  country waiting for hearing their appeals. Thousands of people are waiting for a result in their matrimonial disputes. Thousands of people are waiting for the result in their property disputes. In such a situation, this Court has to consider those litigations as early as possible and this Court is doing that every day. In such a situation, when frivolous petitions are filed, that should be dismissed with a heavy cost."

Also Read: It Is The Duty Of Citizens To Respect The Prime Minister Of India : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Peter Myaliparampil v. Union of India & Anr.

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment