No privacy violation if company makes list of employees not vaccinated against COVID: Madras High Court

A company preparing a list of employees who have not been vaccinated against the COVID-19 virus will not amount to violation of privacy and the company cannot be booked under the Information Technology (IT) Act for the same, the Madras High Court recently held [Gopal Vittal vs Kamatci Shankar Arumugam]..The observations were made by Justice N Anand Venkatesh while quashing a case against telecom giant Bharti Airtel and its officials for preparing a list of employees who were not vaccinated against COVID-19."The follow-up made by the company by getting a list of persons, who have not vaccinated, will not tantamount to circulating sensitive personal data. The company was only following up with its employees to ensure that they got vaccinated and took preventive measures to safeguard themselves from the Corona virus attack," the Court said in its February 2 order..The Court was seized of a petition filed by Bharti Airtel through its officials seeking to quash the summons and other proceedings pending before a Judicial Magistrate in Udumalpet.The proceedings were initiated on a private complaint lodged by one Kamatci Shankar Arumugam, an employee of the company, who claimed that his privacy was invaded by the company and its officials by the unauthorised circulation of his personal data among other employees. The Court noted that the data in question was a list of employees of Bharti Airtel who were not vaccinated against COVID-19.Those employees unwilling to be vaccinated were asked by the company not to come to the office to avoid the spread of the virus.The Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint and issued summons to the company officials in February 2022. In his order, Justice Venkatesh noted that the Supreme Court has, in Jacob Puliyel vs Union of India, already held that no one can be forced to vaccinate himself or herself. "No one can be forced to be vaccinated since such a compulsion will result in infringement of bodily integrity and personal autonomy of an individual. A person cannot be compelled to vaccinate himself. However, an organisation must necessarily take into consideration the welfare of majority of its employees and therefore, a person, who does not vaccinate and follow the COVID-19 Safety Protocol, cannot be allowed to have access to others in a public sphere, as, between the rights of an individual and a larger group of persons, it is the right of the larger group of persons, which will take predominance," the Court added..The Court further noted that the company had informed Arumugam not to physically attend work in the office without vaccinating himself and following the COVID-19 safety protocol. "This step taken by the petitioner company cannot be considered to be coercion or compulsion inflicted on the respondent employee. In fact, this was the norm that was followed by every institution including courts during those difficult times," the single-judge opined. Therefore, preparing a list of employees who have not been vaccinated will not amount to circulation of sensitive data, the Court underscored..Such an effort within the company or any other organisations cannot and will not become an offence under the IT Act, the single-judge made it clear.The Court further noted that the employee's service was actually terminated by the company for his unauthorised absence and that his complaint was filed only later against the company and its officials. "This court finds that the private complaint filed by the respondent against the company and its officers is a clear abuse or process of court, which requires the interference of this Court," the Court concluded..On a parting note, the Court also observed that the coronavirus had virtually shut down the entire world and that scores of people died due to the said virus. The entire world was in a state of confusion and interaction between human beings happened only through screens. This was the situation when the petitioner-company was requesting its employees to get vaccinated, the single-judge added while allowing the company's plea..Senior Advocate Vijay Narayan and advocate PJ Rishikesh appeared for the officials of Bharti Airtel..[Read Judgment].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.