Duty of citizen to respect PM: Kerala High Court invokes Nehru, PVN Rao to dismiss plea against PM Modi photo on vaccine certificate

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition that sought to remove Prime Minister Narendra Modi's photograph from the vaccination certificates issued on the CoWIN portal [Peter Myaliparampil v Union of India]..The Court opined that the petition was frivolous and politically motivated and imposed a heavy cost of ₹1 lakh on the petitioner, one Peter Myaliparampil, an RTI Activist..Justice PV Kunhikrishnan in his judgment stressed on the importance of according respect to the office of the Prime Minister of India, irrespective of the political affiliations of the person adorning the post.He opined that the Prime Minister has assumed office pursuant to the mandate of the citizens and once a person is appointed to the office, he ceases to be the leader of a party and is simply, the Prime Minister of India."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 policies of the Government and even the political stand of the Prime Minister" the Court said. .Therefore, the Court opined that citizens can oppose the actions of the Government under a particular PM but having his photograph on the vaccination certificate is something to be proud of and is not violative of any fundamental rights. "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".The petition, filed through advocate Ajit Joy had challenged the inclusion of the PM's photo even in the certificates of those who had paid for it, primarily on the ground that the inclusion of the PM's photo in the private certificate of an individual serves no public purpose or utility. As a captive audience, the same violates the petitioner's free speech right, including the right against compelled listening, protected by Article 19 of the Constitution of India, it was contended.These arguments were countered by Assistant Solicitor General of India S Manu who pressed for dismissal of the petition with cost..Pertinently, the Court in its judgment also invoked the facets of parliamentary democracy and how political opponents need to be respected. In this regard, the Court highlighted two specific instances - one of India's first Prime Minister Jahwaharlal Nehru and Communist leader AK Gopalan and second concerning then Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao and then leader of opposition AB Vajpayee.On Pandit Nehru and AK Gopalan, the Court had the following to say:"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... 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.".On Atal Bihari Vajpayee and PV Narasimha Rao the Court said: "When our neighbour country decided to raise a question about Kashmir in Geneva Convention on Human Rights, the then former Prime Minister of India, Sri.P.V.Narasimha 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."The Court also highlighted Mahatma Gandhi's views in this regard:"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 will not become the winner.".The Court indicated its concurrence with the views of these leaders saying, "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.".The Court pointed out in its judgement that India has been battling the Covid crisis for nearly two years and in a country with a population of nearly 140 crore, mass vaccination is the only viable solution."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? ...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 Court also rejected the arguments of the petitioner based on the article by Carolin Mala Corbin from the University of Miami Law School, who argues for a new First Amendment Right, Against Compelled Listening. On perusing the article, the Court opined that the petitioner is not a "captive audience" and "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" .During the previous hearing, the petitioner had pointed out that the vaccination certificates issued by other countries do not include the image of their leaders. The Court responded to the same in the judgement saying, "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".Justice Kunhikrishnan went on to lament what he viewed as an emerging trend among "a section of the citizens of our country that the political leaders are all corrupt people and they cannot be believed" He said that politicians must not be generalised on the basis of the dark histories of a few as they are the builders of our nation who communicate directly with citizens.Moreover, the three wings - executive, judiciary and legislature- hold each other accountable, the Court said. "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.".The Court cited the long pendency of cases before courts in India and decided to dismiss the petition, which it opined was politically motivated, publicity oriented and frivolous with ₹1 lakh cost payable to the Kerala Legal Services Authority..[Read Judgment].What is wrong with PM Modi photo on vaccine certificate if University can have name of Jawaharlal Nehru: Kerala High Court