Scribd
Upload
18 views

Moot Problem 3 - MCI

Adil Khan was terminated from his job after testing positive for COVID-19. His personal details were shared without consent through the government's contact tracing app. He filed a petition arguing violation of his privacy and discrimination. The court ruled against him, finding he violated epidemic regulations. He is appealing to the Supreme Court on privacy, equal protection, and the legitimacy of his firing.

Uploaded by

Tarshit Nekkanti
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
18 views

Moot Problem 3 - MCI

Adil Khan was terminated from his job after testing positive for COVID-19. His personal details were shared without consent through the government's contact tracing app. He filed a petition arguing violation of his privacy and discrimination. The court ruled against him, finding he violated epidemic regulations. He is appealing to the Supreme Court on privacy, equal protection, and the legitimacy of his firing.

Uploaded by

Tarshit Nekkanti
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

MOOT PROBLEM- III

Adil Khan is a 35-year-old man who works as a manager at Royal Orchid


Hotel in the state of Murnataka. He stays in an apartment in the
Mayanagar area. He also works at an NGO and provides groceries and
food supplies to the people affected by COVID-19. In April 2020, the
government launched a contact tracing application, ‘Maarogya Alert’. The
government claims it reduces the risk of infection and helps combat the
COVID virus. As per the government regulations, it is mandatory to
install the application to access any public spaces and public services. The
hotel management asked Adil to install the application in compliance
with the government orders. He didn’t install it initially. However, he was
forced to install it to get entry into the hotel premises. After installation,
the application sought an indiscriminate amount of personal details from
him. He was asked about his health, location and other personal
information. Later in March 2021, he experienced cough like symptoms
and went to the nearby hospital to get his RT-PCR test done. The hospital
staff told him that the test report would be sent via message and email.
He received his COVID positive report on 26th March 2021 at 5:00 pm. Few
moments later, he got a call from the Bruhat Tengaluru Mahanagara
Palike that they were standing near his apartment and had informed all
the neighbors about his diagnosis. He was asked to quarantine himself
for seven days as per the government orders. He was taken aback and
wondered how they got his mobile number and personal address. On 27th
March, he decided to order the medicines, groceries and other essentials
online. He opened his Amazon shopping account to order grocery items.
To his surprise, he was already receiving recommendations for COVID
medication, oximeter and other essentials. He ordered some items online.
However, he went to the nearby supermarket to get some vegetables and
fruits, which were not available online. On 28th March 2021, he went to
the mosque to offer namaz. He stayed there for a few hours after which
he went to the office to get one important file. Post seven days, he tested
again, and the report came as negative. On 3rd April 2021, he went to the
hotel to resume his office duty however was denied entry into the hotel
premises and was later terminated from his services for inappropriate
behaviour and non-compliance with the government orders. He was
shattered and later found out that his personal information and location
details were being disclosed to his employer and his neighbors while he
was active on the Maarogya alert.

He filed a petition in the High Court of Murnataka. The counsel for the
petitioner contended that the petitioner had been wrongly terminated
from his services without any legitimate reason. The learned counsel
submitted that the personal details of the petitioner were disclosed
without his authorized consent. The counsel alleged that there had been
a grave violation of Article 21, the petitioner privacy rights had been
infringed. Further, the petitioner is being targeted as he belongs to a
marginalized community. The Royal Orchid hotel has ousted the
petitioner because he belongs to the Muslim community. The learned
Counsel contended that there is a serious violation of Articles 14,15 and
19.

On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent submitted that the
petitioner had been ousted from the services due to his callous and
inappropriate behaviour. It was further submitted that the respondent
did not abide by the government regulations and stepped outside to get
food supplies and essentials which is in violation of Section 3 of the
Epidemics Act., 1897. Further, it is contended that he disobeyed the
regulations by visiting the mosque to offer prayers. The respondent
submitted that as they are in the hospitality business, such a callous
attitude can pose a serious threat to the lives of customers. Further, the
personal information collected is in the interest of public health and that’s
a reasonable restriction applied on the right to privacy. Therefore, there is
no violation of his privacy rights and his termination is justified in the
public interest. Furthermore, there is no violation of Article 19 as he is not
restrained from taking up any job/ occupation elsewhere and he has not
been discriminated against on the ground of his religion instead for his
negligent acts, therefore no violation of Article 14 and Article 15 as
enshrined under the constitution.

After hearing all the arguments, the High court is of the opinion that the
petitioner is liable under the Epidemic Act, 1897 and Indian Penal Code,
1860. The respondent is justified in terminating the petitioner as negligent
acts committed by the petitioner are hazardous to the public. It was held
that the petitioner is liable under sections 269, 270 and 188 of IPC and is
liable under section 3 of Epidemics Act, 1897 for defying orders issued for
containing the virus.

Aggrieved by the conviction as decided in the judgment delivered by the


High court of Murnataka, the petitioner has approached the Hon’ble
Supreme Court. The key issues to be considered in the case are as follows:
Q1. Whether there is a violation of the Right to Privacy under Article 21
of the Indian Constitution?

Q2. Whether there is a violation of Articles 14, 15 and 19 of the Indian


Constitution?

Q3. Whether the termination of the petitioner legitimate and valid?

Disclaimer: This moot problem is entirely fictitious, and any resemblance to any person or
institution is only coincidental. This moot problem is prepared only for the purpose of the
assessment.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy