1

R 1950136 – TANISH A REDDY

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT AT NEW

DELHI, INDIA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: / 2024

ADIL KHAN….… (APPELLANT)

ROYAL ORCHID HOTEL……… (RESPONDENT)

BEFORE SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE JUDGES OF THE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

INDIAN CONSTITUTION

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 2

Table of Contents:

 Index of Authorities__________________________________________Page 3
 Internet Documents__________________________________________Page 4
 Journal Articles______________________________________________Page 5
 List of Abbrevations_________________________________________Page 5
 Statement of Jurisdiction______________________________________Page 7
 Issues Raised_______________________________________________Page 8
 Summary of arguments________________________________________Page 8
 Arguments Advanced_________________________________________Page 11
 Prayer_____________________________________________________Page 15
 3

Index of Authorities:

Sl. NO. CASE NAME

1 Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs. Union ofIndia, (2017) 10

SCC 1

2 Behram Singh v. State of Bombay AIR 1955 SC 123, 1954

MadWN 985

3 R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1995

SC 264
4 Budhan Chaudhary v. State of Bihar [1955] 1 SCR 1045

5 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597; (1978) 1 SCC

248

6 People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v.

Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 399
7 Mr. X v. Hospital Z AIR 1995 SC 495

8 Garda Security Screening Inc v IAM, District 140 (Shoker Grievance)

[2020] OLAA No 162

9 Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi,

(2009) 160 DLT 277
 4

Internet Documents:

Sl. NO DOCUMENT

1 Government regulations and rules relating

to COVID 19
2 Supreme Court precedents on privacy
rights
3 Precedents and orders passed by courts of
law relating to COVID 19
 5
Journal Articles:

SERIAL NUMBER JOURNAL ARTICLE

1 Privacy Rights and COVID-19 Regulations by
Legal Review Journal
2 Discrimination in Employment Practices by
Human Rights Quarterly
3 COVID 19 and the Legislative Response in
India by National Institutes of Health
4 COVID 19,Personal Data Protection and
Privacy in India by Asian Bioethics Review

List of Abbrevations:

COVID Coronavirus Disease

RT-PCR Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain
Reaction
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
SC Supreme Court
HC High Court
IPC Indian Penal Code
MHA Ministry of Home Affairs
FB Facebook
EPI Act Epidemic Act
PM Prime Minister
 6

MLA Member of Legislative Assembly

HR Human Resources
GPS Global Positioning System
ISP Internet Service Provider
HRM Human Resource Management
Hon’ble Honourable
MP Member of Parliament
 7

Statement of Jurisdiction:

The case falls within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India as given under Article 32 of the
Indian Constitution. Adil Khan, the petitioner, is seeking recourse for alleged infringements of his
fundamental rights as guaranteed by the Constitution. The issues revolve around privacy rights,
discrimination, and the interpretation of relevant laws and regulations, firmly establishing the subject
matter within the Supreme Court's authority to address constitutional matters and fundamental rights.
Consequently, the petitioner has petitioned this esteemed Court in pursuit of justice and the upholding
of his constitutional rights.

Article 32 of the constitution;

Art 32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights
conferred by this Part is guaranteed
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature
of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the
enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ), Parliament
may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the
powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 )
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by
this Constitution
 8

Issues Raised:

1. Whether there is a violation of the Right to Privacy under Article 21 of the

Indian Constitution?

2. Whether there is a violation of Articles 14, 15, and 19 of the Indian Constitution?

3. Whether the termination of the petitioner is legitimate and valid?

Statement of Facts:

Adil Khan, a 35-year-old manager at Royal Orchid Hotel in Murnataka, found himself in a
predicament. He lives in Mayanagar and also volunteers at an NGO aiding COVID-19 affected
individuals. In April 2020, the government introduced 'Maarogya Alert', a contact tracing app,
making its installation mandatory to access public spaces and services.

Initially reluctant, Adil had to install the app to enter his workplace. The app, however, demanded
extensive personal information. In March 2021, he tested positive for COVID-19. Soon after, the
local authorities contacted him, surprising him with the accuracy of his personal details.

Despite his positive diagnosis, Adil continued his daily routine, even ordering COVID-related items
online. However, his actions drew attention when he visited public places like the mosque and the
office during his quarantine period.

Consequently, Adil faced termination from his job for allegedly flouting government orders and
endangering public safety. He believed his privacy had been violated, and he was discriminated
against due to his religious affiliation. Adil sought justice in the High Court of Murnataka, arguing
against his termination and the breach of his privacy and rights. However, the court ruled against
him, citing his disregard for public safety regulations.
 9
Now, Adil has appealed to the Supreme Court, contesting the lower court's decision and seeking
redress for what he perceives as unjust treatment and infringement of his rights.

Summary of arguments:

1. Whether there is a violation of the Right to Privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution?

It is argued that there was no violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Article 21
upholds the right to privacy as an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty, forming a
fundamental aspect of the freedoms outlined in Part III of the Constitution. The state, in the
interest of public welfare, imposes certain limitations on the right to privacy. The Respondent,
represented by the State, held such authority under the relevant legislation, the Disaster
Management Act. The government's directive stemmed from Section 10 of the Disaster
Management Act. The development of the application arose from a unique circumstance of
significant public concern, necessitating the creation of a tracking application. Both the public
and the state have a valid interest in being informed about an individual's health status to
effectively monitor and manage the situation. Consequently, there is no infringement of the
Right to Privacy under Article 21.

2. Whether there is a violation of Articles14, 15 and 19 of the Indian Constitution?

It is respectfully argued before this Hon'ble Court that there has been no breach of Articles 14,
15, or 19. Article 14 seeks to ensure equality through appropriate categorization, based on clear
differentiators. It is grounded in the principle that individuals capable of understanding and
executing an action should not seek refuge. The application's implementation aimed to keep
individuals and their communities informed about local events during a critical phase of the
virus's impact. Furthermore, the essential elements of Articles 15 and 19 are not satisfied to
claim their violation. Therefore, there is no infringement of Articles 14, 15, or 19 of the Indian
Constitution.
 10

3. Whether the termination of services of the petitioner legitimate and valid?

It is respectfully argued before this Hon’ble Court that the petitioner's termination is lawful and
justified. Due to the World Health Organization's declaration of Covid-19 as a global health
crisis, the National Executive Committee invoked the Disaster Management Act, which, under
Section 72, supersedes existing labor and employment regulations if they conflict. The
petitioner's termination resulted from his failure to comply with government directives, including
the mandatory quarantine period. His actions posed a risk to his colleagues and hotel guests,
thereby endangering public health and the company's interests. Considering these factors, the
termination was deemed necessary and lawfu
 11

Arguments Advanced:

Issue 1: Whether there is a violation of the Right to Privacy under Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution?

1. The respondent contends that there is no violation of the Right to Privacy under Article 21 of
the Indian Constitution in the case at hand. Article 21 enshrines the right to privacy as an
integral part of the right to life and personal liberty. However, it is argued that in exceptional
circumstances, such as a global health crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic, certain limitations
on privacy rights may be justified in the interest of public health and safety.

2. In this case, the government's collaboration with Facebook and Reliance Industries resulted in
the launch of the 'COVID Alert' contact tracing application in October 2023. The application
was introduced to mitigate the risk of infection and combat the spread of the virus. As per
government regulations, installation of the application was made mandatory to access public
spaces and services. The purpose of collecting personal details through the application was to
facilitate contact tracing and monitor the health status of individuals in the community, thus
contributing to the containment of the virus.

3. In India, the right to privacy is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, as
established in the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India. However, this right is not
absolute and can be subject to reasonable restrictions for legitimate state interests, as stated in
Behram Singh v. State of Bombay. Particularly, during the COVID-19 pandemic, public policy
plays a significant role in protecting public health, justifying certain limitations on privacy
rights under Article 21.

4. Article 21 specifies that the right to life and personal liberty is not absolute and can be
restricted by law. This was affirmed in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, where
the court emphasized the importance of fair procedures and laws in limiting fundamental
rights. Therefore, the mandatory requirement to download the 'Maarogya Alert' application and
disclose information aligns with the state's duty to safeguard public health during a pandemic.

5. In medical cases like Mr. X v. Hospital Z, the court recognized exceptions to confidentiality
 12

rules when there's a risk of endangering others by withholding information. Similarly, in the
present situation, disclosing the appellant's information was necessary to prevent the spread of
the virus. The Disaster Management Act, 2005, empowers state and central authorities to
collect data to mitigate disasters, including pandemics like COVID-19.

6. The Act aims to ensure effective management of disasters, which includes preventing and
managing pandemics. Thus, the conditions allowing for the limitation of an individual's
privacy rights have been met in this case. As such, it cannot be argued that the respondents
violated the appellant's right to privacy under Article 21. The measures taken are in line with
the law and serve the public interest in safeguarding health during a crisis.

7. Furthermore, the respondent argues that the disclosure of personal information, including
health status and location details, was essential for effective contact tracing and ensuring
public safety. The appellant's COVID positive status necessitated communication with relevant
authorities and individuals to prevent further transmission of the virus. Therefore, the
disclosure of such information was not arbitrary but served a legitimate public health interest.

8. In light of these considerations, it is asserted that the government's measures, including the
implementation of the COVID Alert application and the collection of personal data, were
proportionate responses to the exigencies of the public health crisis. The limited intrusion on
privacy rights was justified by the compelling interest in safeguarding public health and
mitigating the impact of the pandemic. Therefore, it is contended that there is no violation of
the Right to Privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution in the present circumstances.
 13

Issue 2: Whether there is a violation of Articles 14, 15, and 19 of the Indian Constitution?

9. The respondent strongly refutes any claims of violating Articles 14, 15, and 19 of the Indian
Constitution in Adil Khan's termination. According to the hotel, Adil's dismissal was solely
due to his inappropriate behavior and failure to adhere to COVID regulations, without any
discriminatory motives.

10. Firstly, the respondent addresses Article 14, arguing that Adil's termination was not random
but a result of his specific actions. The hotel asserts that any employee who breaches company
policies, regardless of severity, would face similar consequences, ensuring consistency in
enforcing rules.

11. Regarding Article 15, the hotel denies any discrimination based on religion. Adil's termination,
the respondent emphasizes, was solely related to his conduct during the pandemic and not
influenced by his religious background. The hotel maintains that it upholds non-discriminatory
practices in employment decisions. In response to Article 19, the respondent argues that Adil's
termination doesn't impede his freedom to seek alternative employment. The decision was a
consequence of his actions during the pandemic and doesn't infringe upon his broader freedom
to find other jobs. The hotel stresses that while Article 19 guarantees certain freedoms, it
doesn't shield individuals from repercussions resulting from actions jeopardizing public health.

12. The respondent contends that Adil's termination aligns with the consistent application of
regulations within the organization. Similar breaches by other employees would receive equal
treatment, ensuring fairness and uniformity in enforcing COVID-related rules. The respondent
maintains that Adil Khan's termination doesn't violate Articles 14, 15, and 19. It was based on
specific pandemic-related actions, without discriminatory intent, and in line with established
organizational regulations.
 14

Issue 3: Whether the termination of the petitioner is legitimate and valid?

13. It is respectfully submitted that the termination of the petitioner's employment is submitted
before the Hon’ble Court as lawful and valid. The Maarogya Alert App introduced by the
government is argued not to violate Article 14 of the Constitution because it makes reasonable
classifications based on discernible differences, aligning with the principles of fair
classification as outlined in Budhan Chaudhary v. State of Bihar.

14. The application aims to categorize individuals based on understandable differences to

implement welfare schemes effectively, reflecting the guiding principles of state policy
embedded in the Constitution. While not legally enforceable, these principles are integral to
governance and guide legislative efforts in accordance with Article 37.

15. Article 38 emphasizes the state's duty to promote the welfare of its people, striving to establish
a social order founded on justice in all aspects of life. The Directive Principles of State Policy
play a crucial role in shaping a welfare state, promoting prosperity and well-being for all
citizens.

16. According to Article 47, the state is entrusted with improving nutrition, living standards, and
public health. The Maarogya Alert App, in line with these principles, tracks diseases and
facilitates welfare activities to protect public health and promote equality. In Garda Security
Screening Inc v IAM, an arbitrator upheld an employee's dismissal for failing to comply with
COVID-19 rules, emphasizing employers' obligations to maintain workplace health and safety.
The decision underscored the importance of employees adhering to health protocols and self-
isolation guidelines while awaiting test results.

17. Therefore, the termination of employment in the present case is deemed legitimate and valid,
aligning with the Epidemic Diseases Act, the Disaster Management Act, and broader public
health policies established by the government. Such measures are deemed essential for the
larger public interest and welfare of society.
 15

Prayer:

In light of the foregoing arguments and considerations, the respondent respectfully prays before
thisHonourable Court for the following reliefs:

(1) The respondent respectfully prays for the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal
challenging the decision of the High Court of Murnataka. The respondent contends that
the High Court's judgment was well-founded, considering the petitioner's negligent
behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic and the consequent termination.

(2) The respondent requests the Honourable Court to recognize the paramount importance of
public interest and safety during a global health crisis. Adil Khan's actions, as determined
by the lower court, were not only in violation of statutory provisions but also posed a
potential threat to the livesof customers and staff within the hospitality business.

(3) The respondent seeks the Court's affirmation that the installation of the 'COVID Alert'
application, as mandated by the government in collaboration with Facebook and Reliance
Industries, constitutes a reasonable restriction on the Right to Privacy under Article 21 of
the Indian Constitution. The data collection through the application is portrayed as a
responsible measure aligned with the government's efforts to combat the COVID-19
pandemic.

(4) The respondent urges the Court to validate its non-discriminatory employment practices,
asserting that Adil Khan's termination was solely based on his actions during the pandemic
and not influenced by his religious identity. The termination was consistent with
established regulations within the organisation, ensuring fairness in the application of
policies.
 16
(5) The respondent humbly requests the Court to recognise its compliance with
government regulations, both in terms of enforcing COVID-related measures within
the organisation and ensuring adherence to the statutory provisions of the Epidemics
Act, 1897.