Supreme Court Bans Affixing Posters on Homes of COVID-19 Patients: Kush Kalra vs. Union of India (2020)

Date of the Judgment: 09 December 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 924

Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J., M.R. Shah, J.

Can the state publicly identify individuals with COVID-19 by affixing posters outside their homes? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a Public Interest Litigation, examining the balance between public health measures and individual rights. The core issue was whether the practice of affixing posters outside the residences of COVID-19 positive persons infringes upon their fundamental right to privacy and dignity. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy, and M.R. Shah, with Justice Ashok Bhushan authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The petitioner, Kush Kalra, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, challenging the practice of various states and union territories of affixing posters outside the residences of individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 and were under home isolation. The petitioner argued that this practice violated the fundamental rights of these individuals, specifically their right to privacy and their right to live with dignity. The petitioner sought the following reliefs:

• A writ of certiorari to quash the decision of affixing posters outside the residences of COVID-19 positive persons under home isolation.
• A writ of mandamus to direct authorities to end the practice of affixing posters.
• A writ of mandamus to direct authorities not to disclose the names of COVID-19 positive individuals to any person or welfare associations.
• An interim direction to stop the circulation of names of COVID-19 positive persons in WhatsApp groups of welfare associations.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework relevant to this case is the fundamental right to privacy and dignity, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court has previously recognized the importance of this right in the case of *Justice K. S. Puttaswamy(Retd.) vs. Union of India*, [(2017) 10 SCC 1]. The court also considered the Disaster Management Act, 2005, under which the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare issued guidelines for home isolation.

The relevant legal provisions are:

• Article 21 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty, which the Supreme Court has interpreted to include the right to privacy and dignity.
• Disaster Management Act, 2005: This Act empowers authorities to take measures during disasters, including health crises.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The petitioner argued that affixing posters outside the residences of COVID-19 positive persons is a gross violation of their right to privacy, which is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner relied on the judgment in *Justice K. S. Puttaswamy(Retd.) vs. Union of India* [(2017) 10 SCC 1] to emphasize the importance of the right to privacy.
• The petitioner contended that publicly affixing posters and disclosing the names of COVID-19 positive persons is inhuman and indignifying, subjecting them to public scrutiny and gossip, thereby destroying their dignity.
• It was argued that COVID-19 positive persons should not be discriminated against merely because they have contracted the illness, as such discrimination violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
• The petitioner submitted that COVID-19 positive persons already face restrictions due to isolation, and affixing posters further curtails their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• The petitioner also argued that the practice of affixing posters is counterproductive, as it deters people from getting tested to avoid public embarrassment and stigmatization.

Union of India’s Arguments:

• The learned Solicitor General, representing the Union of India, clarified that the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare for home isolation do not include any instructions for affixing posters outside the residences of COVID-19 positive persons.
• The Union of India submitted that the Department of Family Welfare had issued a letter on 19.11.2020 to all States and Union Territories, reiterating that there is no guidance regarding affixing posters outside the residences of those found COVID-19 positive.

Submissions by Parties:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

Although the Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues, the core issue before the Court was:

• Whether the practice of affixing posters outside the residences of COVID-19 positive persons, who are under home isolation, violates their fundamental right to privacy and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Justice K. S. Puttaswamy(Retd.) vs. Union of India [(2017) 10 SCC 1] (Supreme Court of India): This case was referred to emphasize the importance of the fundamental right to privacy as a part of Article 21 of the Constitution.

Legal Provisions:

• Article 21 of the Constitution of India: The Court considered this article to determine the scope of the right to privacy and dignity.
• Disaster Management Act, 2005: The Court noted that the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare were referable to the exercise of power under this Act.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on *Justice K. S. Puttaswamy(Retd.) vs. Union of India [(2017) 10 SCC 1]* to underscore the significance of the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• The Court considered Article 21 of the Constitution of India to determine the scope of the right to privacy and dignity.
• The Court referred to the Disaster Management Act, 2005, noting that the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare were referable to the exercise of power under this Act.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the Union of India clarified that there were no guidelines or instructions that mandated the affixing of posters outside the residences of COVID-19 positive persons. The court emphasized the importance of the right to privacy and dignity, as established in *Justice K. S. Puttaswamy(Retd.) vs. Union of India*, but ultimately based its decision on the lack of any legal requirement for such posters.

The Court’s reasoning was also influenced by the fact that the practice of affixing posters was counterproductive, as it deterred people from getting tested, thereby hindering public health efforts.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s decision was influenced by:

The court’s decision was primarily based on the legal interpretation of the guidelines and the right to privacy, with less emphasis on the specific facts of the case.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court disposed of the writ petition, observing that no State or Union Territory is required to paste posters outside the residence of COVID-19 positive persons. The Court emphasized that the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare do not contain any instructions or guidance regarding affixing posters. The Court noted that the Union of India had clarified this position through a letter dated 19.11.2020.

The Court stated:

“…we only observe that no State or Union Territory is required to paste posters outside the residence of COVID-19 positive persons, as of now.”

The Court further clarified:

“The State Governments and Union Territories can resort the above exercise only when any direction is issued by the competent authority under the Disaster Management Act, 2005.”

The Court’s decision was based on the lack of any legal requirement for affixing posters and the recognition that such a practice could be counterproductive and violate the privacy of individuals. The Court did not delve into the constitutional validity of such a practice, as the Union of India clarified that there was no mandate for it.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court clarified that there is no requirement for States or Union Territories to affix posters outside the residences of COVID-19 positive persons.
• The decision emphasizes the importance of the right to privacy and dignity, even during a public health crisis.
• The judgment serves as a reminder that public health measures should be implemented in a manner that respects individual rights.
• The States and Union Territories can resort to such practice only when any direction is issued by the competent authority under the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions, but observed that no State or Union Territory is required to paste posters outside the residence of COVID-19 positive persons, as of now. The State Governments and Union Territories can resort to this exercise only when any direction is issued by the competent authority under the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the practice of affixing posters outside the residences of COVID-19 positive persons is not mandated by the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The judgment clarifies that States and Union Territories are not required to paste posters, and they can resort to such practice only when any direction is issued by the competent authority under the Disaster Management Act, 2005. This judgment does not lay down any new legal principle but reaffirms the importance of the right to privacy and dignity within the existing legal framework.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Kush Kalra vs. Union of India provided clarity on the issue of affixing posters outside the homes of COVID-19 positive individuals. The Court held that this practice is not required by the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and that States and Union Territories are not obligated to follow it. The decision underscores the importance of balancing public health measures with the fundamental rights to privacy and dignity. The judgment ensures that public health measures are implemented in a manner that respects individual rights and are based on clear legal mandates.