SCHOOL OF LAW

CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY), BANGALORE

Moot Memorial on Adil Khan V Royal Orchid Hotel & Ors.

Submitted to

Mr. Ashwin Kunal Singh

Assistant Professor, CHRIST (Deemed to be University)

Submitted by

Shradha Alanghat

2050182

10 BA LLB (A)
 TABLE OF CONTENTS-

1. Table of Contents
2. List of Abbreviations
3. Index of Authorities
4. Statement of Jurisdiction

5. Statement of Facts
6. Statement of Issues

7. Summary of Arguments
8. Arguments advanced

9. Prayer

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS-
Abbreviation Full Form

Art. Article

SC Supreme Court

HC High Court

AIR All India Reporter

SCC Supreme Court Cases

IPC Indian Penal Code

CrPC Criminal Procedural Code

v. Versus

& Ors. And Others

Govt. Government

r/w Read With

UOI Union of India

EDA Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897

Cases Laws-

1. State of Maharashtra v. Saeed Sohail Sheikh (2012) 13 SCC 192

2. Modern Dental College v. State of MP (2016) 7 SCC 353

3. Zoroastrian Cooperative Housing Society v. District Registrar (2005) 5 SCC 632

4. Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar AIR 1958 SC 538

Statutes-

1. The Constitution of India, 1950

2. The Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897

Internet article-

Right to Privacy (Article 21 of Indian Constitution) - Evolution, Importance, Restrictions and Concerns,

TESTBOOK, https://testbook.com/ias-preparation/right-to-

privacy#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20Supreme%20Court,a%20crime%20from%20being%20comm

itted.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION-

The respondents humbly submit to the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 136 of the

Constitution of India.

The Constitution of India, Article 136 provides:

“136. (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant

special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter

passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.

(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or made by

any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.”
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

Adil Khan, a 35-year-old manager of the Royal Orchid Hotel in Murnataka, found himself in
acomplicated legal battle arising from the use of the application's COVID-19 contact-tracing 'Maarogya
Alert'. The government made the operating of the application a compulsory prerequisite for accessing
public spaces and services in April 2020. Though he resisted initially, Adil must install the application to
maintain his employment.

The invasive method of gathering data by the application became quite clear when it started asking for the
patient's status and location. By March 2021, he was tested positive for COVID-19. Immediately after the
test report, Adil was startled to see his personal information shared by the Bruhat Tengaluru Mahanagara
Palike with neighbors and perhaps even an employer.

The breach of privacy became even more evident when Adil experienced online shopping that featured
targeted recommendations for COVID-related medicines; this somehow indicated that his medical
information had unjustly leaked. Despite adhering to isolation regulations and later testing negative, Adil
was fired from his position at the Royal Orchid Hotel on 3rd April 2021 on alleged grounds of misbehavior
and violation of government policy.
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

Q1. Does the situation involve an infringement of an individual's Right to Privacy as protected under
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution?

Q2. Has there been a breach of:

The Right to Equality (Article 14)

Q3. Was the petitioner's termination legally justified and procedurally proper under the relevant laws and
regulations?
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Does the situation involve an infringement of an individual's Right to Privacy as protected under
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution?

The collection and use of personal information through Maarogya Alert is a legitimate restriction on
privacy rights in the interest of public health. Right to Privacy is not an absolute right and can be
restricted by public authorities, on some legitimate and reasonable grounds. These grounds include:

Legitimate Aim (Pandemic Control)-

The first requirement is that any restriction on privacy rights must serve a legitimate state objective. In the
case of ‘Maarogya Alert’, controlling the COVID-19 pandemic was clearly a legitimate aim as the
government has a fundamental duty to protect public health. The app was introduced specifically to
address the urgent need to contain virus spread during a global health emergency, making the objective
both valid and pressing.

Rational Connection (Contact Tracing Helps Control Spread)-

This element requires demonstrating that the chosen measure (Maarogya Alert) is logically connected to
achieving the stated objective. Contact tracing through the app had a direct and rational connection to
pandemic control because it enabled quick identification of potential COVID-19 exposure. By tracking
proximity between users and alerting them of possible contact with infected individuals, the app created a
technological mechanism that could help break the chain of transmission.

Necessity (No Less Intrusive Alternatives Readily Available)-

The necessity test examines whether less privacy-invasive alternatives could achieve the same objective.
During the pandemic's peak, manual contact tracing was overwhelmed and ineffective at the scale
required. While other methods like maintaining physical registers existed, they were slower and less
efficient. The app's digital contact tracing capabilities offered real-time alerts and wider coverage, making it
a necessary tool when considering the urgency and scale of the pandemic response needed.
Balancing of Rights (Public Health vs Individual Privacy)-

This final element involves weighing the extent of privacy infringement against the public health benefits.
While Maarogya Alert did collect sensitive personal data, including location and health information, this
had to be balanced against its role in protecting public health during an unprecedented crisis.

This has been elucidated by the Supreme Court in the case of Modern Dental College v. State of Madhya
Pradesh.

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

There is no violation of Articles 14, 15, and 19 as the actions taken were based on the petitioner's conduct,
not his identity. The conduct of the petitioner involved violation of a government order and he was liable
under special statutory provisions. There was no intention of discriminatory practice. The petitioner’s
negligent action of entering the hotel premises in spite of being warned by the hotel authorities, not to do
so, as it can pose serious health threat to the consumers. There was clear act of violation by the petitioner
that went against the government guidelines that the hotel authorities had to adhere to. Thus, the
contention that the petitioner was violated as a part of belonging to a marginalized community. The
termination of his service by the hotel authorities, was definitely based on legitimate grounds, as they hold
a reasonable expectation for their employees to adhere to health guidelines followed by the hotel
authorities to prevent the spread of the covid-19 virus.

1. Was the petitioner's termination legally justified and procedurally proper under the relevant laws and
regulations?

Yes, the petitioner’s termination was legally justified and procedurally proper under the relevant laws and
regulations. The termination is legitimate and valid due to the petitioner's wilful violation of quarantine
orders and endangerment of public health.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED-
 1. The right to privacy could be restricted on the basis of compelling public interest. (Distt. Registrar
and Collector, Hyderabad and Ors. vs. Canara Bank and Ors. (01.11.2004 - SC) :
MANU/SC/0935/2004)

The right to information and right to privacy are, therefore, not absolute rights, both the rights, one of
which falls Under Article 19(1)(a) and the other Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, can
obviously be regulated, restricted and curtailed in the larger public interest. Absolute or uncontrolled
individual rights do not and cannot exist in any modern State. (Central Public Information Officer,
Supreme Court of India vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (13.11.2019 - SC) : MANU/SC/1561/2019)

The Apex Court has put forth in several landmark judgements that right to privacy is subject to its own
reasonable restrictions in order to address larger concerns of general, national security and so on. It has
also been emphasized that there has to be some reasonable intervention in the right to privacy in order to
prevent a crime from being committed.

1. As per Section 269 of IPC, anyone who unlawfully or negligently acts in a way that could spread a
life-threatening disease can face up to 6 months in prison and/or a fine. The petitioner has acted in a
manner that could contaminate the health of the people in the places he visited. For instance, he
visited the supermarket to get vegetables and fruits, later went to the mosque, both these are areas are
premises that are densely crowded with people. In fact, in State of Maharashtra Vs. Chandrabhan,
AIR 1983 SC 803 the Supreme Court held that right to life, enshrined in Article 21 means something
more than survival or animal existence. This reflects on the ‘Right to live a healthy life’ certainly can
be brought under the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution -‘Right to Life’.

In the case of (State of Punjab & Ors v Ram Lubhaya Bagga, the Court emphasized on the significant role
of public authorities to take required initiatives to ensure that overall public health is protected, that has
been delineated in Article 47 of the Constitution. This reflects the duty of public authorities to ensure to
take every possible steps to ensure that public health is protected.

Section 269, I.P.C., occurs in Ch. XIV which is headed of “offences affecting the public health, safety,
convenience, decency and morals.” (S. Cahoon vs A. Mathews 1897 SCC OnLine Cal 37 : (1896-97) 1
CWN 274 : ILR (1897) 24 Cal 494)

1. Section 270 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the punishment for maliciously performing an
act that is likely to spread a dangerous disease. In this scenario, the petitioner had suffered from
symptoms that were associated with the Covid virus. He voluntarily went to the nearest hospital to
get himself tested. As a result, he received his covid report on 26th March 2021 at 5:00 pm, that
clearly stated that he had tested positive for the covid virus. This means he had complete knowledge
of the fact that he was infected and that if he didn’t quarantine himself would make others
susceptible to being infected. This act reflects that he knew and evidently had the reason to believe
that his failure to take reasonable care and precaution would result in spreading of the virus.

After contracting the virus on 26th March 2021, just two days later, on 28th March 2021, he violated the
government’s order to quarantine himself, and went to the mosque and also entered the hotel premises,
from where he was clearly prohibited from entering as per the health guidelines followed by the Royal
Orchid Hotel, in adherence to the orders from the government.

1. As per section 3 of the Epidemics Act, 1897, “Any person disobeying any regulation or order made
under this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offence punishable under section 188 of the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).” The petitioner violated a government order that was issued by the
 State government under section 2 of the Epidemics Act,1897, in order to prevent further spreading of
the virus.

1. Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, states that “Whoever, without reasonable cause
— refuses to comply with any direction given by or on behalf of the Central Government or the State
Government or the National Executive Committee or the State Executive Committee or the District
Authority under this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one
year or with fine, or with both”

The petitioner refused to comply with the directions as per the government order.

1. No Violations of Articles 14,15 and 19-

a) Article 14 Compliance:

- The termination was based on objective criteria

- Similar action would be taken against any employee violating quarantine

- The decision follows the principle of reasonable classification

b) No Religious Discrimination:

- The action was based on violation of quarantine orders

- Religion played no role in the decision-making process

- Other employees violating protocols faced similar consequences

c) Legitimate Restriction under Article 19(6):

- Restrictions are reasonable and in public interest

- The hospitality industry requires strict health protocols

- Employee conduct directly affects public safety

7. Legitimacy of Termination of the employee-

- Willful violation of government orders

- Endangerment of public health

- Breach of employment terms regarding safety protocols

b) Procedural Compliance:

- Termination follows principles of natural justice

- Action based on documented violations

- Employer's duty to ensure workplace safety

c) Statutory Violations by Petitioner:

- Violation of Section 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act

- Offenses under Sections 269, 270, and 188 IPC

- Breach of mandatory quarantine requirements

1. Some additional grounds-

a) Public Health Implications:

- Hospitality industry carries higher transmission risks, thus the negligent act of the petitioner by
entering the hotel premises during the time he was prescribed by authorities to quarantine himself, could
severely hamper the health of the hotel’s customers and remaining staff.

- Employer's duty to protect staff and customers, as a result of which the hotel authorities had the duty
to ensure that the petitioner faces the serious consequence for violating the government guidelines, that
had to be strictly followed by the hotel authorities.

- Precedential value for pandemic management

b) Balance of Rights:

- Individual rights must be balanced with public safety

- Reasonable restrictions during health emergencies

- Proportionate response to serious violations

In light of the above submissions, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Supreme Court may be
pleased to:

1. Dismiss the Special Leave Petition;

1. Uphold the judgment of the High Court of Murnataka;

1. Declare the termination as valid and constitutional;

1. Impose appropriate costs on the petitioner;

AND /OR
Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Supreme Court may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of
justice, equity and good conscience

For this act of kindness, the respondents shall as in duty bound ever pray.

Filed By:

Counsel for the Respondents

Place: New Delhi

Date: 08/12/2024