Read Time: 10 minutes

The Kerala High Court has junked an appeal filed by Congress worker Peter Myaliparambil, a Kottayam resident who had contended that the present vaccine certificate violates the fundamental rights of a citizen and sought a certificate without the photo of the Prime Minister.

A bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly said that the placement of the photo on vaccine certificates cannot be linked to canvassing for votes. "It is not an ad, a prime minister can give out a message"

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan of the Kerala High Court had earlier dismissed the plea challenging the photograph of Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Covid-19 vaccination certificates issued to citizens while taking a stern view of such “publicity oriented litigations”. The Court had also ordered the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lac as costs 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 for wasting court's judicial time.

Myaliparambil had approached the division bench appealing against this order of the Single Judge.

The Court had then observed that India has been struggling with Covid-19 since past two years, noted:

“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? “

On the petitioner’s claim that the photo is an intrusion of his privacy, the Court stated:

“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..."

"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... 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”, the Court added.

The Court thus rejected the argument in limine. The Court further pointed out that 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. He ought to be protesting the use of Nehru’s name too.

“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,” the Court noted.

The Court further observed that 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.

"But can anyone generalise like that? What is wrong with politicians?” he asked.

“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. 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 policies of the Government and even the political stand of the Prime Minister.”

Thus, the Court dismissed the petition stating that it is a frivolous petition filed with ulterior political motives. The Court stated:

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.

The Court noted that the amount is big 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.”

The Court further noted that 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.

 

Cause Title: Peter Myaliparampil vs Union of India