"CR"

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

TUESDAY, THE 21ST

DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

WP(C) NO. 21560 OF 2021

PETITIONER:

PETER MYALIPARAMPIL,

AGED 62 YEARS,

SON OF LATE JOSEPH, MYALIPARAMPIL HOUSE, POOZHIKOL P.O.,

KADUTHURTHY, KOTTAYAM-686604.

BY ADV AJIT JOY

RESPONDENTS:

1 UNION OF INDIA

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY

WELFARE, NIRMAN BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110011.

2 GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,

REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

BY ADV MANU S., ASG OF INDIA

SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR.G.P.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.12.2021, THE

COURT ON 21.12.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

2021/KER/54511

W.P.(C) No.21560 of 2021 2

"CR"

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

------------------------------------------

W.P.(C) No.21560 of 2021

------------------------------------------

Dated this the 21

st

day of December, 2021

J U D G M E N T

This writ petition is filed with a prayer to declare that

affixing the photograph of the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India

in the COVID-19 Vaccination Certificate of the petitioner is an

infringement of his fundamental right. There is a further prayer

to issue appropriate direction to the 1

st

respondent to issue the

petitioner a COVID-19 vaccination certificate without the

photograph of the Hon'ble Prime Minister in it, along with

access to the COWIN platform, to generate such a certificate

when needed.

Pleadings

2. The petitioner claims that he is an RTI activist and

2021/KER/54511

W.P.(C) No.21560 of 2021 3

one of the State Coordinators of the National Campaign for the

Peoples Right to Information (NCPRI). The petitioner also

claims that he is an extension faculty of Kerala Institute of

Local Administration and State Level master coach of the

Jawaharlal Nehru Leadership Institute, New Delhi. It is the case

of the petitioner that he was desirous of taking a vaccination

against the Covid 19 pandemic. Since the Government of

Kerala came out with a Government Order prohibiting non-

vaccinated persons from visiting public places, the petitioner

decided to get vaccination immediately. When the petitioner

enter the COWIN ( https://www.cowin.gov.in/) app/site and

upon registration in the COWIN app, the petitioner secured a

slot for a paid vaccination in a private hospital in Kottayam

District at Kerala on 4.8.2021. It is the case of the petitioner

that, at the time of entry into COWIN portal, the petitioner was

exposed to the landing page showing the colour picture of the

Hon'ble Prime Minister of India Sri.Narendra Modi, along with a

message, "ARE YOU PROTECTED AGAINST COVID-19?" both in

2021/KER/54511

W.P.(C) No.21560 of 2021 4

English and Hindi. The printout of the screenshot of the landing

page of the COWIN site is marked as Ext P1 in this writ

petition. The petitioner took the first dose of Covid 19 and he

was administered with the COVISHIELD vaccine by paying an

amount of Rs.750/-. It is the case of the petitioner that he was

surprised to find that this certificate contains the colour

photograph of the Hon'ble Prime Minister Sri.Narendra Modi! It

is also the case of the petitioner that at the bottom half of the

vaccination certificate, there is a message in the dual language

of Malayalam and English with the words "MEDICINE AND

STRICT CONTROLS" (in Malayalam) and "TOGETHER WITH

INDIA WILL DEFEAT COVID-19" (in English). Below the above

message, the name of the Hon'ble Prime Minister is mentioned.

Ext P2 is the certificate. The petitioner produced Ext P3, the

printout of the landing page of the website of the Ministry of

Health and Family Welfare, Government of India and in it also

a message has been widely mentioned as "largest vaccination

campaign in the world" with a salute to the Hon'ble Prime

2021/KER/54511

W.P.(C) No.21560 of 2021 5

Minister "Thank You P.M.Modi". It is the case of the petitioner

that even on the birthday of the Hon'ble Prime Minister which

was celebrated on 18.9.2021, a nationwide campaign was

carried out calling for a record number of vaccinations to be

administered as a gift to the person who was gifted free

vaccines to India. Ext P4 is a printout of the screenshot of a

Tweet of a Cabinet Minister in charge of the Ministry of Health

and Family Welfare. The petitioner also produced Ext P5 which

is a report in Economic Times E-Paper dated 15.9.2021. The

report says that University Grants Commission (UGC) has

asked the Government funded Universit ies and colleges to

display banners and hoardings on free vaccination for all adults

and a message thanking Prime Minister Narendra Modi for a

free vaccination. Ext P6 is also a direction sent to Kendriya

Vidyalaya Sanghathan, Bengaluru Region for schools in that

region to display similar banners thanking the Hon'ble Prime

Minister for the vaccinations for those above 18 years. Ext P7

is the landing page of the 1

st

respondent Aarogya Sethu App in

2021/KER/54511

W.P.(C) No.21560 of 2021 6

which also the photograph of the Hon'ble Prime Minister is

there with a message “largest vaccine drive”.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the National

Campaign against COVID-19 is being converted into a media

campaign for the Hon'ble Prime Minister. According to the

petitioner, the presence of the photograph of the Hon'ble Prime

Minister in COVID-19 related campaigns and messaging in

public places including Railway Stations, Airports, Post Offices,

Banks along with the same messages in public websites and

social media handles of Government entities, all with

photograph and name of Hon'ble Prime Minister seems to him

to be designed not for a health campaign. It is the case of the

petitioner that it is an effort to show the campaign as a one

man show, propaganda to project an individual at State

expenses. The petitioner produced Ext P8 printout of the news

item from the Indian Express which says that based on a

complaint from a political party, the Election Commission of

India directed the authorities to remove the Prime Minister's

2021/KER/54511

W.P.(C) No.21560 of 2021 7

photo from the Covid jab certificate where States which are

headed to poll. According to the petitioner, a vaccination

certificate is bound to carry and produce while using public

places, during travel, booking tickets, entry to restaurants,

movie halls, etc. According to the petitioner, the photo of the

Prime Minister in the certificate has no utility and relevance.

The petitioner produced Exts P9(a) to (f) vaccination

certificates of the United States of America, Indonesia, Israel,

Kuwait, France, and Germany to show that in those countries

the Prime Minister's photo is not affixed in the vaccination

certificate. It is the definite case of the petitioner that he

consider the photograph of the Hon'ble Prime Minister as a

needless intrusion into the private space of the petitioner.

Hence, the petitioner submitted Ext P10 before the 1

st

respondent to issue him with a certificate without the

photograph of the Hon'ble Prime Minister. There was no

response to Ext P10 and in such situation, the present writ

petition is filed.

2021/KER/54511

W.P.(C) No.21560 of 2021 8

Arguments of the parties

4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and Advocate

S.Manu, Assistant Solicitor General of India.

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if

the photograph of the Hon'ble Prime Minister in the vaccination

certificate is with a motivation message, the petitioner is not

interested in such a certificate. According to the counsel, the

photograph of the Hon'ble Prime Minister on the certificate

forces the petitioner to compulsory viewing the photograph

which is an infringement of his right. According to the

petitioner, it leads the petitioner to the forced listening to the

message accompanying the photograph. It is also submitted by

the counsel that when the Government issued a certificate

such as Ext P2 certificate, the recipient of the certificate is no

more than a captive audience. The petitioner as a captive

audience is not in a position to avoid the objectionable speech

and is forced to be subject to it, here in the form of the

2021/KER/54511

W.P.(C) No.21560 of 2021 9

photograph of the Hon'ble Prime Minister and his message. It

is argued by the counsel that the State in its messaging,

especially while addressing a captive audience has a right not

to compel listening from those unwilling. In other words, the

counsel submitted that the petitioner has a free speech right

protected by Article 19 of the Constitution of India against

compulsory and forced listening. The petitioner produced a

table in the ground (F) of the writ petition and submitted that

the photograph of the Hon'ble Prime Minister in the petitioner's

certificate violates his fundamental right as a listener and a

viewer corresponding to box 4 and 6. The table extracted in

ground (F) of the writ petition is extracted here also.

Speakers

Right

Listeners Right Viewers Right

1

Right to

speak

3

Right to Listen

5

Right to see

2

Right against

compelled

speech

4

Right against compelled

Listening

6

Right against

compelled Viewing

2021/KER/54511

W.P.(C) No.21560 of 2021 10

It is stated that the above principle is adapted from Caroline

Mala Corbin, The First Amendment Right Against Compelled

Listening, Boston University Law Review Vol.89:939.

6. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the

Government messaging should not personify a leader, like the

Hon'ble Prime Minister. It is also stated that apart from being

the leader of the country, he is also the leader of a political

party and active in day-to-day politics. Campaign with

Government funds ought to be as far as possible content

neutral. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the

apex court in Peoples Union for Civil Liberties v Union of

India (2013 (10) SCC 1) which says that the essence of the

electoral system should be to ensure freedom of voters to

exercise their free choice. The counsel also submitted that in

Common Cause v Union of India (2015 KHC 4372), the

Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down certain guidelines for

advertisement and campaigns using public money. The counsel

2021/KER/54511

W.P.(C) No.21560 of 2021 11

relied on paragraphs 22 and 23 of the above apex court

judgment.

7. The Assistant Solicitor General of India (ASGI)

Sri.S.Manu submitted that the petition itself is a frivolous writ

petition and this Court may not entertain this type of publicity

oriented litigations. The ASGI made available a question put by

a Hon'ble member of the Rajya Sabha in the upper house of

the Parliament and the answer given by the Minister

concerned. The ASGI submitted that the photograph in the

vaccination certificate is with a message and there is nothing

wrong in giving a message by the Prime Minister of the country

to the nation through a vaccination certificate. ASGI also relied

upon the judgment of the apex court in Sanjeev Bhatnagar v

Union of India (2005 KHC 782). In that case, the prayer of

the petitioner is to delete the word 'sind' from the national

anthem. The case was dismissed with cost.

2021/KER/54511

W.P.(C) No.21560 of 2021 12

Factual analysis and conclusion

8. I considered the contention of the petitioner and the

ASGI. 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.

9. Moreover the decision of the apex court relied on by

the petitioner himself will cover the point raised by him. The

relevant portion of the Common Cause case (supra) of the

apex court is extracted hereunder:

22. This will require the Court to consider the different

aspects of a Government advertisement campaign

highlighted earlier on which we have reserved our

comments. The first is with regard to publication of

photographs of functionaries of the State and political

leaders along with the advertisement issued. There can be

no manner of doubt that one Government advertisement

or the other coinciding with some event or occasion is

2021/KER/54511

W.P.(C) No.21560 of 2021 13

published practically every day. Publication of the

photograph of an individual be a State or party functionary

not only has the tendency of associating that particular

individual with either the achievement(s) sought to be

highlighted or being the architect of the benefits in respect

of which information is sought to be percolated.

Alternatively, programmes/ targets for the future as

advertised carry the impression of being associated with

the particular individual(s). Photographs, therefore, have

the potential of developing the personality cult and the

image of a one or a few individuals which is a direct

antithesis of democratic functioning.

23 The legitimate and permissible object of an

advertisement, as earlier discussed, can always be

achieved without publication of the photograph of any

particular functionary either in the State of a political

party. We are, therefore, of the view that in departure to

the views of the Committee which recommended

permissibility of publication of the photographs of the

President and Prime Minister of the country and Governor

or Chief Minister of the State alongwith the

advertisements, there should be an exception only in the

case of the President, Prime Minister and Chief Justice of

the country who may themselves decide the question.

Advertisements issued to commemorate the anniversaries

of acknowledged personalities like the father of the nation

would of course carry the photograph of the departed

leader.

10. In paragraph 23 of the above decision, after

discussing the matter in detail, the apex court observed that

there is an exception to the President, Prime Minister, and

Chief Justice of the country in this regard. In this case, Ext P2

is the vaccine certificate in which the photograph of the

2021/KER/54511

W.P.(C) No.21560 of 2021 14

Hon’ble Prime Minister is affixed. I perused Ext P2 vaccination

certificate issued to the petitioner. It is stated in the certificate

like this:

“ മരരുനരുന്നും കർശനനനിയനന്ത്രണങ്ങളളന്നും"

Together, India will defeat COVID-19

പപ്രധധാനമപനന

നരരേപന്ദ്രരമധാദന

(Translation of Malayalam portion to english is like this:-

"medicine and strict control” “Prime Minister Narendra Modi”.)

11. Our country is facing the Covid-19 pandemic for the

last one and half years. The country faced 1

st

and 2

nd

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

2021/KER/54511

W.P.(C) No.21560 of 2021 15

COVID-19 pandemic is vaccination by all the citizens. In such

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? When the

counsel for the petitioner argued this case, I specifically asked

him this question. Counsel says that the photograph of the

Hon'ble Prime Minister of India in his vaccination certificate is

an intrusion to his privacy! 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 has got

people's mandate. Till the general election is over, the citizen

can campaign based on their political view. 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

2021/KER/54511

W.P.(C) No.21560 of 2021 16

the leader of that political party but he is a leader of the

country. There can be grievances against the policies of the

Government. There can be political differences with the views

of the Prime Minister. But those views can be raised in a

democratic manner. In the next general election, they can

make use of it and remove him with people's mandate. But

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”. When the country is facing a pandemic situation and at

that time, the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India, gave a message

in the vaccination certificate with his photographs to boost the

morale of the citizen, I do not understand why the petitioner

says before this Court 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 knows about our nation and its

history. The petitioner claims that he is the State Co-ordinator

2021/KER/54511

W.P.(C) No.21560 of 2021 17

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. 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 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. 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.

12. Another fantastic argument from the petitioner is

based on an article by Carolin Mala Corbin from the University

of Miami Law School, who argues for a new First Amendment

Right, Against Compelled Listening. The petitioner produced a

2021/KER/54511

W.P.(C) No.21560 of 2021 18

table based on that article and argued that there are speakers

right, listeners right, and viewers right. According to the

counsel for the petitioner, the speaker's right is the right to

speak and there is also a right against compelled speech. It is

further contended that the listener's right is to right to listen

and there is also a right against compelled listening. Thereafter

the petitioner contends that viewers' right is the right to see

and there is a right against 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. First of all, the

petitioner has not read the article of Caroline Mala Corbin in

full. The same is not even produced before this Court in full.

When a party to a lis relies on a material to support his

argument he is bound to produce the entire materials and not

2021/KER/54511

W.P.(C) No.21560 of 2021 19

a portion of it. if the entire material is not produced, the court

can reject that argument for that simple reason itself. But I try

to obtain the same from the internet so that if there is any

point in it the petitioner should not suffer for the nonproduction

of the same alone. In that article right against compelled

listening is separately mentioned with a separate caption. It

will be better to extract that portion of the article of Caroline

Mala Corbin which is available on the internet.

"D. Right Against Compelled Listening

The same values that undergird the traditional free speech

rights support a right against compelled listening. When

the government forces its arguments or information onto

unwilling recipients, it can distort the proper functioning of

the marketplace of ideas and undermine democratic

decision-making by the people. More obviously, though,

when the government makes a captive audience listen

against its will to a government message, it runs

roughshod over individuals right to control their own

development and decision-making processes. As a result,

the right against compelled listening is most strongly

grounded in the First Amendment values of autonomy,

self-realization, and self-determination.

As a doctrinal matter, the proposed right against

compelled listening builds on the captive audience doctrine.

A principal difference between the existing doctrine and the

free speech right against compelled listening is that while

the captive audience doctrine is conceived as a limit on

private speech, a constitutional right against compelled

2021/KER/54511

W.P.(C) No.21560 of 2021 20

listening limits the government. That difference aside, the

elements required to establish a compelled listening case

are similar to a captive audience claim: the listener must

be a captive audience in the descriptive and normative

sense.

First, as with captive audience doctrine, the listener must

be unable to readily avoid the government's speech. In

other words, the government need not stop speaking

anytime someone in listening range would rather not hear

its message. Thus, the right against compelled listening

does not preclude the government from advocating policy

positions or launching public education campaigns.

Instead, protection against unwanted speech only attaches

when there is captivity. If the government wants to run

magazine advertisements detailing the dangers of

smoking, it may do so as long as it does not make reading

them mandatory. The state violates the right against

compelled listening only when the government's message

crosses over from available to required viewing. The

magazine advertisements would not qualify because people

can easily avert their eyes from them.

Second, as a normative matter, the listener should not

have to forfeit the ability to be somewhere or do something

in order to avoid hearing the government's message.

Rather than having to establish that privacy, equality, or

the right to vote is jeopardized before the unwilling listener

can assert a right not to listen, the listener could satisfy

this element by demonstrating that one of the core free

speech values is impeded by the state's mandated

listening, such as the listener's decision-making autonomy

or the free flow of information crucial to the marketplace of

ideas and political deliberation. As discussed below,

whether paternalistic state-compelled listening enhances or

diminishes autonomy is subject to dispute, as is the degree

to which the state can be trusted to regulate the flow of

information. Such disputes give rise to potentially different

delimitations of the right against compelled listening.

As with any free speech right, the right against

compelled listening is not absolute. Government action

frequently implicates free speech rights without violating

them. Instead, the same levels of scrutiny applicable to the

2021/KER/54511

W.P.(C) No.21560 of 2021 21

other free speech rights should likewise apply. For

example, conduct regulations that incidentally require

compelled listening would be subject to a lower level of

scrutiny, but viewpoint-based compelled listening would be

unconstitutional unless it passes strict scrutiny. If strict

scrutiny applies, the state can override the listener's free

speech rights and impose a viewpoint-based message only

if the state's interest is compelling, such as preventing

harm to others, and its means are narrowly tailored."

(Underline supplied)

13. From the above portion of the Article itself, it is

clear that the State can override the listener's free speech

rights and impose a viewpoint based message if the State's

interest is compelling such as preventing harm to others and

its means are narrowly tailored. 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 be said that it will come within the four corners of right

against 'compelled listening or viewing’. Moreover, even as per

2021/KER/54511

W.P.(C) No.21560 of 2021 22

the above article, the ‘compelled listening or viewing’ is only

when the Government forces its arguments or information onto

unwilling recipients. In other words, when the Government

makes a captive audience and forces them to listen or view a

Government message, then only it can be stated that there is

compelled listening or viewing. Therefore, the principle of the

above right mentioned in the article against compelled listening

is applicable only if there is a captive audience. The meaning

of captive audience is "a person or people who are unable to

leave a place and are forced to listen to what is being stated".

In the article mentioned above itself it is stated that if the

Government wants to run magazine advertisements detailing

the dangers of smoking, it may do so as long as it does not

make reading them mandatory. The State violates the right

against compelled listening only when the Government

message crosses over from the available required viewing.

The magazine advertisements would not qualify the same

because people can easily avert their eyes from them.

2021/KER/54511

W.P.(C) No.21560 of 2021 23

Similarly, 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. This is

also a frivolous contention raised by the petitioner. 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.

14. 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

2021/KER/54511

W.P.(C) No.21560 of 2021 24

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.

Executive, judiciary, and legislature are the three organs envisaged

in our Constitution. If a parliamentarian commits a mistake the

judiciary can scrutinise the same. If a judge of the constitutional

court commits mistakes there is power to the parliament to

impeach him. This is the beauty of our constitution. The politicians

are going to the people and spending time with them directly. The

people elect the eligible persons among them and send them to the

Parliament and the majority party will select their leader and he will

be our Honourable Prime Minister for five years. Till the next

general election, he will be the Prime Minister of India. Nobody can

say that a Prime Minister is a Congress Prime Minister or a BJP

Prime Minister or the Prime Minister of any political party.

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

2021/KER/54511

W.P.(C) No.21560 of 2021 25

policies of the Government and even the political stand of the Prime

Minister. They can address the citizens saying that what the

Government under the leadership of the Prime Minister is doing is

not for the welfare of the citizens. But 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. There is no infringement of a fundamental

right or any other right like compelled viewing, etc in such a

situation as alleged by the petitioner. These are frivolous

contentions that should be curbed immediately.

15. The petitioner should study the history of Indian

democracy. The beauty of the Indian democracy is described by our

Father of Nation - Mahatma Gandhi in a beautiful manner. I heard

this story from a speech of a public speaker, which is available on

the internet. When a small child asked Bapuji about the definition of

democracy, Bapuji replied to the child saying that democracy is a

running race and who became first will lead the country. But,

Bapuji also reminded that if there is no loser, there is no winner

and the winner should always remember that if there is no loser, he

2021/KER/54511

W.P.(C) No.21560 of 2021 26

will not become the winner. What a beautiful interpretation of

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 Indian National Congress in that election

obtained 364 seats out of 489 seats. The 2

nd

largest party after the

Indian National Congress was the Communist Party of India with 16

members which of course 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. Sri.A.K.Gopalan who is popularly

known as AKG, in one of his parliamentary speeches, said that "My

English may be broken, but the cause I represent never" and a

scholar like Panditji used to hear such speech from him patiently.

16. Similarly, the former Prime Minister of India, Sri.Atal

Bihari Vajpayee in one of his parliamentary speeches remembered

the stand taken by the then Prime Minister of India Hon'ble

P.V.Narasimha Rao. When our neighbour country decided to raise a

question about Kashmir in Geneva Convention on Human Rights,

the then Hon'ble former Prime Minister of India, Sri.P.V.Narasimha

2021/KER/54511

W.P.(C) No.21560 of 2021 27

Rao requested Sri.Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who was in opposition at

that time to represent India and to speak in Geneva. The Hon'ble

Prime Minister Sri.Vajpayee said in that speech that the people in

the neighbouring country were surprised because the opposition

leader of India is sent to Geneva to express the opinion of the

ruling party. 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. It has got a beautiful tradition

and history. After electing the members of the Parliament and

thereafter when the Prime Minister is selected, the country will

forget the political difference and respect the Prime Minister, but of

course, any citizen can oppose the Government policies and the

political view of the Prime Minister. That is our tradition and that

should be our tradition. As Bapuji said, the winner should know that

he won the race because there is a loser. The loser should know

that he is the loser and he is not the winner. There ends the

dispute. Mutual respect is part of democracy. If that is not there,

that will be the black day of democracy.

2021/KER/54511

W.P.(C) No.21560 of 2021 28

17. The contentions of the petitioner, in this case, cannot

be accepted at all. 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. A citizen of this country argues

before the High Court that carrying the photograph of his Prime

Minister in the vaccination certificate with a morale boosting

message in a pandemic situation is an intrusion to his privacy. The

petitioner says that it is a 'compelled viewing'. As I observed

earlier, these are frivolous contentions, which never expects from a

citizen. 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 will address the Prime Minister as the 'Hon'ble

Prime Minister'. According to me, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-

should be imposed as a cost in the facts and circumstances of this

case. I know the above amount is big as far as a citizen is

2021/KER/54511

W.P.(C) No.21560 of 2021 29

concerned. But, when these types of frivolous contentions are

raised by the petitioner, he should know the effect and 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. There can be a

direction to the petitioner to pay the cost within six weeks from

today and the cost should be paid to the Kerala State Legal

Services Authority (KELSA) which is doing a great job in the state

of Kerala by helping the poor genuine litigants. If the amount is not

paid by the petitioner, the KELSA should recover the same from the

assets of the petitioner by taking appropriate steps through

revenue recovery.

Therefore, the above writ petition is dismissed imposing a

2021/KER/54511

W.P.(C) No.21560 of 2021 30

cost of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees One Lakh only) which is to be paid by

the petitioner to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority within

six weeks. If the amount is not paid by the petitioner within six

weeks, the KELSA will take appropriate steps to recover the same

through revenue recovery from the assets of the petitioner, in

accordance to law forthwith and report the same before the

Registrar General of this Court after recovery. The registry will

serve a copy of this judgment to the Member Secretary, KELSA for

compliance.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,

JUDGE

cms/SKS

2021/KER/54511

W.P.(C) No.21560 of 2021 31

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21560/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 A PRINTOUT OF THE SCREENSHOT OF THE LANDING

PAGE OF THE COWIN SITE ACCESSED BY THE

PETITIONER.

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COVID-19, FIRST DOSE

VACCINATION CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER

DOWNLOADED BY THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P3 A TRUE PRINTOUT OF THE LANDING PAGE OF THE

WEBSITE OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY

WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.

Exhibit P4 A TRUE PRINT OUT OF THE SCREEN SHOT OF A

TWEET IN THIS REGARD BY THE HON'BLE CABINET

MINISTER IN CHARGE OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH

AND FAMILY WELFARE, SRI.MANSUKH MANDAVIA ON

THE EVE OF THE HON'BLE PRIME MINSTER'S

BIRTHDAY ACCESSED AT

HTTPS://TWITTER.COM/MANSUKHMANDIYA?LANG=EN .

Exhibit P5 A TRUE PRINTOUT OF THE NEWS ITEM IN THE

ECONOMIC TIMES E-PAPER DATED 15.09.2021 TITLED

"DISPLAY BANNERS THANKING PM MODI FOR FREE

VACCINES: UGC TO EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS,"

Exhibit P6 A TRUE PRINT OUT OF THE NEWS ITEM IN THE HINDU

DATED 21.06.2021 TITLED, "KV SCHOOLS ASKED TO

DISPLAY BANNERS THANKING MODI FOR FREE

VACCINATION."

Exhibit P7 A TRUE PRINTOUT OF THE LANDING PAGE OF THE 1ST

RESPONDENT'S AAROGYA SETU APP.

2021/KER/54511

W.P.(C) No.21560 of 2021 32

Exhibit P8 A TRUE PRINTOUT OF THE NEWS ITEM FROM THE

DAILY, INDIAN EXPRESS DATED 06.03.2021 AND TITLED

"AFTER TMC COMPLAINT, EC SAYS REMOVE PM'S

PHOTO FROM COVID JAB CERTIFICATE"

Exhibit P9(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE COVID VACCINATION

CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES OF

AMERICA.

Exhibit P9(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE COVID VACCINATION

CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY INDONESIA.

Exhibit P9(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE COVID VACCINATION

CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY ISRAEL.

Exhibit P9(D) A TRUE COPY OF THE COVID VACCINATION

CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY KUWAIT.

Exhibit P9(E) A TRUE COPY OF THE COVID VACCINATION

CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY FRANCE.

Exhibit P9(F) A TRUE COPY OF THE COVID VACCINATION

CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY GERMANY.

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE 1ST

RESPONDENT DATED 20.09.2021 ALONG WITH THE

POSTAL RECEIPT.

RESPONDENTS EXTS NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

cms/SKS

2021/KER/54511