IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

WRIT PETITION
NO. xx/2022

ADIL KHAN................................................................................................PETITIONERS

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR................................................................RESPONDENTS

BEFORE SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE JUSTICE

OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

❖ LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS..................................................................Page 2

❖ INDEX OF AUTHORITIES...................................................................Page 3

❖ STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION......................................................Page 5

❖ STATEMENT OF FACTS......................................................................Page 6

❖ STATEMENT OF ISSUE........................................................................Page 8

❖ SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.............................................................Page 9

❖ ARGUMENTS ADVANCE...................................................................Page 11

❖ PRAYER.................................................................................................Page 18

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another

Hon’bl Honorable
e
Ltd. Limited

No. Number

Ors. Others

Para Paragraph

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court

Cases
Sec. Section

UOI Union of India

v. Versus

w.r.t concerning

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

I. CASES
1. Air India v. Nergesh Meerza and Ors. Etc. (1982) S.C.R. (1) 438 (India).
2. ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, 3 S.C.R 442 (India).
3. Behram Singh v. State of Bombay, (1954) S.C.R. 1112 (India).
4. Bhandua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, 1984 A.I.R. 802 (India).
5. Budhan Choudhry And Other v. State of Bihar, (1955) S.C.R. (1)1045 (India).
6. Coffin, et al. v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895).
7. D.P Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 654 (India).
8. E.V. Chinnah v. State of A.P., (2005) 1 S.C.C. 394 (India).
9. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1974 A.I.R. 555 (India).
10. Garda Security Screening Inc v. IAM, District 140 (Shoker
Grievance) [2020] OLAANo 162.
11. Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, (1973) 1
S.C.C. 227(India.)
12. Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India and Ors.
(2017) 10 S.C.C. 1(India).
13. Kathi Raning Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra, (1952) S.C.R. 435 (India).
14. Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1964 (1) S.C.R. 332 (India).
15. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 A.I.R. 597 (India).
16. Mr. X v. Hospital Z, (2003) 1 S.C.C. 500 (India).
17. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo v. Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte &Ors., (1996) 1
S.C.C. 130(India).
18. T.R. Kothadaram v. T.N. Water Supply and Drainage Board, (1994) 6 S.C.C.
282 (India).

II. BOOKS:
1. H.M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (4th ed., 2002).
2. M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (7th ed., 2014)
3. D.D. BASU, INTRODUCTION TO THE CONSTITUTION, (22nd ed., 2015).

III. CONSTITUTION AND STATUTUES

1. Constitution of India, 1950

2. Epidemics Act, 1897
3. Disaster Management Act, 2005

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Article 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.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1) Adil Khan, a 35-year-old resident of Mayanagar, Murnataka, held a

managerial position at the Royal Orchid Hotel. In October 2023, the
government launched a contact tracing app named 'COVID Alert,'
developed in collaboration with Facebook and Reliance Industries, asserting
its efficacy in curbing the virus's spread. Mandated by government
regulations, the app's installation becomes obligatory for accessing public
spaces and services.
2) Initially resistant to installing the 'COVID Alert' app, Adil eventually
complies under pressure from the hotel management, finding its intrusive
data collection practices unsettling. In November, Adil experiences
symptoms resembling a cough, prompting him to undergo an RT-PCR test
at a nearby hospital. Upon testing positive for COVID-19 on December 26,
2023, Adil is instructed to observe a seven-day quarantine.
3) During his isolation, Adil opts for online purchases of essential items due to
his positive diagnosis. He observes targeted advertisements on Facebook for
COVID-related products, indicating a potential breach of privacy. Despite
ordering some items online, he ventures to a local supermarket for
perishable goods not available digitally. On December 28, 2023, Adil
attends a mosque for prayers and later visits his office briefly to retrieve a
crucial document.
4) Upon testing negative post-quarantine, Adil attempts to return to work on
January 3, 2024, but is denied entry to the hotel premises and subsequently
terminated from his position. He alleges wrongful termination, asserting that
his privacy rights were violated through the unauthorized disclosure of
personal information and location data by Facebook and the 'COVID Alert'
app.
5) High Court ruled in favor of the respondent, holding Adil liable under the
Epidemic Act of 1897 and the Indian Penal Code. Dissatisfied with the
verdict, Adil appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the conviction and
asserting violations of his constitutional rights.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

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

of the IndianConstitution?

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

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

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER THERE IS A VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO

PRIVACY UNDERARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA?

It is contended that no breach of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution occurred.

Article 21 protects the right to privacy as an inherent aspect of the right to life and
personal liberty and as a component of the freedoms granted by Part III of the
Constitution. To safeguard the public interest, the state puts various constraints on
the right to privacy. The Respondent, the State, possessed such authority under
the applicable statute, the Disaster Management Act. The government issued the
instruction pursuant to Section 10 of the Disaster Management Act. This App
evolved out of a unique event with a high level of public interest that necessitated
the creation of such a tracking application. The public and the state have a
legitimate interest in knowing the individual's medical status in order to monitor
and stabilise the situation. As a result, there is no breach of Article 21's Right to
Privacy.

2. WHETHER THERE IS A VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 14, 15

AND 19 OF THECONSTITUTION OF INDIA?

It is most humbly argued before this Hon'ble Court that no infringement of

Articles 14, 15 or 19 has occurred. Article 14, in which it makes an endeavour to
promote equality via the useof an appropriate categorization system. It is founded
on the intelligible differentia that an individual who possesses the mental ability
and physical capacities to grasp the nature and consequences of an act, as well as
to carry it out, should not be permitted to seek safe harbour. The app-based
engagement was implemented to keep individuals and their neighbours aware of
events occurring in their immediate surroundings, since the virus's threatand
effect were at an all-time high. Additionally, the fundamental components of
Articles 15 and 19 are not met in order to assert their violation. As a result, there
is no infringement of Articles 14, 15, or 19 of the Indian Constitution.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

3. WHETHER THE TERMINATION OF THE PETITIONER IS
LEGITIMATE ANDVAILD?

It is argued respectfully before this Hon’ble Court that the petitioner's

termination is lawful and legitimate. As a consequence of the World Health
Organization's designation of Covid-
19 as a worldwide health pandemic, the National Executive Committee
invoked the Disaster Management Act, which, pursuant to Section 72, has
precedence over prevailing labour and employment rules, to the extent that
they contradict. The Appellant was terminated because he disobeyed
government directives and failed to quarantine himself for the requisite time
period. He disobeyed government directives and also constituted a threat to his
co-workers and hotel visitors. All of these factors contribute to an act that is
detrimental to the company's interests and would harm the great majority of the
public thatvisit their hotel. As a result, the termination was legal.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THERE IS A VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO

PRIVACYUNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION?

1. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that there has been no violation
of the Right to Privacy under Article 211 of the Indian Constitution of the
Appellant, in the instant case. This is argued on the basis of the scope of the right
to privacy in the Indian scenario. (1) That the right to privacy is not absolute in
nature (2) That the requirement ofthe Puttaswamy case is met.
1.1 THAT THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY IS NOT ABSOLUTE IN NATURE

2. In India, the right to privacy is a guaranteed fundamental right under Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution, which was held in the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of
India2. However, the scope of this right is such that it is not absolute in nature and is
subject to reasonable restrictions, like all other fundamental rights. This right is such that
it may be encroached upon by due process of law, for a legitimate state interest.3
3. In the case of Behram Singh v State of Bombay 4, it was held that Fundamental Rights are
provided for public policy, too, along with the fact that it is provided for the benefit of the
citizens. It is humbly submitted that in the instant case, public policy plays an important
role in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, which required the state to take steps to
prevent the spread of the virus, to secure public health. Thus, Article 21 is to be viewed
from a broader perspective, keeping in mind the duty of the state to protect public health.5
4. It is humbly submitted, that looking at the wording of Article 21 itself makes it amply
clear that the right to life and personal liberty is not absolute in nature 6: “No person shall
be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by
law”

1 India Const., art. 21.

2 Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India and Ors. (2017)
10 3 S.C.C. 1 (India).3 ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, 3 S.C.R 442
(India).
4 Behram Singh v. State of Bombay, (1954)

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

This limitation of the right was also upheld in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of
India8, wherein the court held that fundamental rights can be legitimately overlooked
when there is a law which has been enacted by any competent legislature and where
the procedure is just, fair and reasonable.

5. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that in the instant case the
Appeallant’s claim that his Right to Privacy has been violated by the
Respondents, due to the mandatory requirement of all citizens to download the
‘Maarogya Alert’ and disclosure ofinformation, does not hold any merit, since
this right is restricted by the pressing issue of public health, amidst a pandemic.
In the case of Mr. X v. Hospital Z9, this Hon’ble Court had held that in medical
cases, an exception to the rule of confidentiality can be made where there is a
possibility of endangering other people, if the information is not disclosed.
Similarly in the instant case, there was a need to disclose information of the
Appellant, inclusive of information pertaining to his identity and location, to the
public authorities and his employers since there was a risk of spreading the virus
to other people.
6. It shall also be noted that in the instant case, it is not the respondent, but the
Appellant who is in violation of the Government regulations pertaining to
quarantining himself for a period of 7 days. Since there have been recorded
movements of the Appellants in public on 27th and 28th of March, the period in
which he was ordered to be in quarantine, the liability of violation of the order
falls on him.
1.2. THAT THE CONDITIONS SET OUT IN THE PUTTASWAMY CASE
HAVE BEEN MET
In the landmark case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the court had stated that
for the right to privacy of a person to be encroached, three conditions shall be met:
i. That there shall be a governing law
ii. That this governing law shall have a legitimate aim
iii. That the law shall be proportionate to the objective sought

7. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that in the instant case all
these conditions have been met. Firstly, it is humbly submitted that under S.36
and S.39 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, state and central authorities

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 also allows for the National Institute of Disaster Management with the
previous approval of the Central Government to make regulations in order to
carry out the purposes of the Act. Since the pandemic is a situation which falls
under the definition of “Disaster” under S.2(d), it is humbly submitted that the
first requirement of a governing law is satisfied.
8. It is submitted that secondly, it is humbly submitted that the governing law,
i.e. The Disaster Management Act, 2005 has been enacted in order to provide
for the “effective management of disasters”. Here, there is a legitimate aim in
place,
i.e. to prevent and manage disasters, which is a pandemic in the instant case.
9. It is submitted that lastly, it is humbly submitted that there is a reasonable
nexus between the law and the objective sought, in the instant case. Here,
essentially the objective which is sought by the government is to reduce the
risk of infection and to combat the spread of the COVID virus. The
government regulation which has been passed under the Disaster Management
Act, 2005 seeks to do so through the introduction of the ‘Maarogya Alert’
Application and by making the installation of the same mandatory. It is
humbly submittedthat in the instant case, since the protection of public health
is a legitimate state interestfor the Indian government being a welfare state11,
the introduction of an application which serves to control the situation by
collecting the personal information of the subjects is a proportional action
taken by the government.
10. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that since the three
conditions on the basis of which the right to privacy of an individual can be
overlooked, have been met in the instant case, it cannot be said that this right
has been violated by the respondents.
ISSUE 2: WHETHER THERE IS A VIOLATION OF ARTICLES14, 15
AND 19 OFTHE INDIAN CONSTITUTION?

11. It is most humbly argued before this Hon'ble Court that no infringement of
Articles 14, 15 or 19 has occurred. According to Article 14 of the Indian
Constitution, the State shall not deny any individual equality before the law or
equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. The clause
emphasizes the universal right to equality.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 2.1. THAT THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF
THE INDIANCONSTITUTION

12. It is submitted that additionally, Article 14 establishes the Doctrine of

Reasonable Classification and the Doctrine of Reasonable Differentia. 12 In the
landmark case of EP

Royappa v State of Tamil Nadu13, according to the Supreme Court, equality is

antithetical to arbitrariness from a positivistic perspective. When an act is
arbitrary, it implies that it isunequal both politically and constitutionally, and
so violates Article 14. By using the Supreme Court's decision, it is abundantly
clear that the app does not behave arbitrarily inthe way it performs or executes
its role. Additionally, the order forcing the use of the app is issued in
accordance with the Government's exemplary authority under the Disaster
Management Act.
13. It is submitted that the Respondent used the app-based engagement to keep
individuals and their neighbours informed of events occurring in their
immediate surrounds, since thethreat and effect of the virus were at an all-time
high, thereby fulfilling the criteria outlined in the preceding instance.
Additionally, it is worth noting that the Government's instructions apply to all
Indian nationals without distinction. As a result, Article 14 is violated.
14. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that in the case of State of
West Bengal vAnwar Ali Sarkar14, the Apex Court established two standards
for assessing reasonable categorisation. In the situation at hand, the app-based
engagement was used to keep individuals and their neighbours updated about
events occurring in their immediate surrounds, as the threat and effect of the
virus were at an all-time high, thereby meeting the criteria outlined above.
15. It is submitted that additionally, it is worth noting that the Government's
instructions apply to all Indian nationals without distinction. As a result, it
does not infringe Article
14. Even if, for the sake of clarity, the app is used by only sick persons, it
would not infringe Article 14 because the program's usage and functions are
only for the benefit of the broader public.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

2.1. THAT THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 15 OF THE INDIAN
CONSTITUTION

16. It is most respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble Court that Article 15 15 of
the Indian Constitution enumerates that there should not exist discrimination
on the grounds of sex, religion, gender, or another form of classification.16

17. It is most respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble Court that Article 15 of the
Indian Constitution can be assessed under three notions. Article 15(1) states that
no individual can be discriminated against on given protected grounds. Article
15(2) states that citizens can access public spaces or commercial spaces without
any form of discrimination on protected grounds.
18. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that Article 15(2) provides for
horizontalprohibition of denial of access. It is submitted that in the case of TM
Pai Foundation v. State of Kerala it was held by the Court that the State cannot
impose restrictions regarding the admissions of backward classes
19. A cursory reading of the Article demonstrates unequivocally that discrimination
shall not be based on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. In the instant
case, the Government issued an order requiring everyone to download the app
for the public'ssafety and welfare. Due to the absence of prima facie evidence of
any violation and the indisputable facts being mute on any proof, it is most
humbly argued before this Hon'ble Court that no breach of Article 15 of the
Indian Constitution has occurred. In E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P.17, it was
ruled that a statute cannot be challenged on the basis ofa breach of Article 14 if
its purpose is to carry out Articles 15 and 16 or if the differentiation is not
unreasonable or arbitrary.

2.2. THAT THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 19 OF

THE INDIANCONSTITUTION

20. The Constitution of India confers upon all citizens fundamental rights, including
the right to freedom of speech and expression, to assemble peaceably and
without arms, and to form associations or unions under Article 19 18(1)(a), 19(1)
(b) and 19(1)(c) respectively. It is submitted that Article 19 (1) (d) looks into the
fundamental right to freedom of movement. Here the term freely indicates the
absence of restrictions. It is to be noted that this right is subject to reasonable

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 restrictions under Article 19(5).19 Article 19 (5) states that the State can curtail
the freedom of movement of individuals. This is done in the interest of the
general public.

It is submitted that Article 19's right is not absolute and may be subject to
state- imposed constraints. The Appellant was not banned from seeking other
employment, and his Article 19 right to work was not infringed. As a result,
the same will not contradict India's Article 19 constitution. Concern for public
health is a valid justification,and the Appellants were not subjected to any
breach of their basic rights. This analysis demonstrates that appropriate
constraints on these liberties are possible. Additionally, a recent revision to
India's Constitution added public health as a justifiable constraint. As a result,
the same will not contradict India's Article 19 constitution. Hansaria, J.
remarked succinctly in T.R. Kothandaraman v. T.N. Water Supply and
Drainage Board20, that “Our Constitution's golden triangle is constituted of
Articles 14, 19, and 21." Incorporating such a trinity into our supreme
constitution is intended to provide a route for the Indian people toward the
trinity of liberty, equality, and fraternity.”

ISSUE 3: THE TERMINATION OF THE PETITIONER FROM

EMPLOYMENT IS LEGALAND VALID
21. It is most respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the termination of the
petitioner from employment is legal and valid. It is submitted that the Maarogya Alert
App introduced by the government does not violate Article 14 21 of the Constitution
because it makes a reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia as per
Article 14 of the Constitution of India for thesuccessful implementation of welfare
schemes, as stipulated by the Constitution. While Art. 14 forbids class legislation, it does
not exclude the use of fair classification for the purposes of legislation. In Budhan
Chaudhary v. State of Bihar,22 the Supreme Court established the test for reasonable
classification, which requires that: (1) the classification proposed in legislation must be
based on discernible differentia; and (2) there must be a close connection between
theclassification and the Act's object, among other requirements.
22. It is submitted that the goal of the application is to appropriately categorise persons based

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 on comprehensible differences and is neither arbitrary or unreasonable in its
classifications. In order to give effect to the guiding principles of state policy entrenched
in Part IV of the Indian Constitution, the government enacted the legislation. Even
though the directive principles of statepolicy are not enforceable in a court of law in
India, they are essential to the country's governance, and it is the state's responsibility to
make legislation in accordance with the principles, according to Article 37 23 of the
Indian Constitution.

23. It is submitted that according to Article 38, 24 the state shall constantly strive to promote
the welfare of the people by guaranteeing and constructing as effectively as possible a
social order founded on social, economic, and political justice in all aspects of life. A
welfare state is one in which the prosperity and well-being of its residents are actively
promoted. Genuine conscience isformed by Fundamental Rights and Directive
Principles, and it is impossible to establish the Welfare State envisaged by the
Constitution without adhering to and genuinely implementing theDirective Principles.

24. It is submitted that according to Article 4725 of the Constitution, the major
responsibilities of the state are to improve the nutrition and standard of living of its
residents, as well as to improve the general public health. The Maarogya Alert App,
developed by the government, is intended to keep track of diseases and afflictions
affecting the country, as well as to develop welfareactivities to aid the less fortunate in
order to protect public health. This is accomplished through the use of the Directive
Principles of State Policy, which promote the broader egalitarian principle.

25. It is submitted that in the case of Garda Security Screening Inc v IAM, 26, an arbitrator
determined that an employee's refusal to adhere to their employer's and public health
rules regarding COVID-19 was sufficient cause for termination. As a unionized
employee, the employee benefited from the collective bargaining agreement's just cause
provisions for termination. Despite these safeguards, the arbitrator determined that the
employee's acts were a "clear violation" of COVID-19 principles, necessitating
termination.

26. It is submitted that the arbitrator's judgment to sustain the employee's dismissal was
succinct and demonstrates the gravity of employers' obligations to ensure workplace
health and safety. The arbitrator concluded simply that "the employer took the required
efforts to ensure that all employees, including the grievant, were and continue to be
aware
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
 of the company's and Public Health's policies." Similarly, the arbitrator concluded that
the employer had made it very obviousthat employees who were tested for COVID-19
were required to self-isolate while awaiting results. The arbitrator stated that "prudence
and common sense, if nothing else, should have recommended that the employee refrain
from returning to work until she learned of her medical status.

27. Thus, it is submitted that the termination of employment in the instant case was
legitimate and valid as it was in consonance with the Epidemic Diseases Act, the
Disaster Management Act and the general public health policies as determined by the
government. Further, this was in the largerpublic interest and welfare of the society

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is

humblyprayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to hold adjudge and declare that:

1. There is no violation of the Right to Privacy under Article 21 of

the Constitution as therestriction falls under the ambit of a

reasonable restriction;

2. There is no violation of Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution;

3. The termination of employment of the Petitioner is legal and valid.

AND/OR

Pass any other order as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit in terms of equity, justice, and

good conscience and for this act of kindness the Respondent shall as duty bound ever

humbly pray. All ofwhich is respectfully submitted.

Sd/---

Counsel for
the
Respondent

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS