Skip to main content

Kush Kalra v. Union of India

 

KUSH KALRA v. UNION OF INDIA, 2020

An extra-ordinarily landmark judgement of the Supreme Court pertaining to COVID pandemic circumstances. The apex court in its ruling in the above-mentioned case prohibited pasting of posters outside the residences of COVID-19 patients announcing home isolation or health status.

The Supreme Court noted in due course of hearing that the hard reality is many such patients are treated as untouchables.

Background:

Mr. Kush Kalra, a Delhi based advocate filed a PIL in Supreme Court, seeking its directions to stop pasting posters outside COVID-19 patients. He argued that it violates Art. 14 of the Constitution as those people are then not treated equally in society. Moreover, it violates the Right to Privacy(Art. 21) of an individual. He also sought an end to the revealing of names of COVID-19 patients by the Health Department. He also brought into notice that no such guidelines had been issued by the Central Government to the State Governments.

The solicitor general on behalf of the central government asserted that no such  guidelines had been issued by the central government nor was it obligatory for any State or Union Territory to paste posters outside the residence of COVID-19 positive persons.


(Image Source: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/is-it-ethical-to-stick-posters-outside-houses-of-isolated-patients-experts-say-it-adds-to-covid-stigma/articleshow/78617033.cms)

Judgement:

The three-judge bench presided over by Justice Ashok Bhushan decided the case. The court observed that no State or Union Territory was obligated to paste posters outside the residences of COVID-19 patients. 

The Court also held that any such action could only be taken by a competent authority under the National Disaster Management Act, 2005. It stated that minimizing the social stigma around COVID-19 would not only prevent discrimination against patients but will allow more people to come forward and get tested without any fear of backlash.

Thus pasting of posters outside COVID-19 patients’ residences was prohibited.


Download Full Judgement here   (Courtesy: Supreme Court of India)

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Difference between Theft, Robbery and Dacoity

Theft v. Robbery v. Dacoity ( เคšोเคฐी , เคฒूเคŸ เค”เคฐ เคกเค•ैเคคी ) Theft, robbery and dacoity are terms that are generally used interchangeably and assumed as a synonym to one-another. But in law, they are not the same. They have different meaning and distinct essential characteristics. Let’s analyze each of them. 1.       1.  Theft ( เคšोเคฐी) : Theft is defined under Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code.   (Image source: https://www.gps-securitygroup.com/how-to-prevent-theft-and-shoplifting-at-your-retail-store/) Theft is committed when somebody takes out some movable property (i.e. which can be moved e.g. car, money, animals etc.) out of the possession of the owner without his consent and with a dishonest intension to steal it. The victim may or may not be present at the site of theft. Illustration : Suppose a friend of yours comes to your house when you are not there. He sees a gold ring lying on a table. He hides it with the intension of telling you ...
1 comment
Read more

Doctrines under Art. 13 of the Indian Constitution

  Doctrines under Art. 13 of the Indian Constitution Art. 13(1) of the Indian constitution constitutes two doctrines so as to protect the existence of Fundamental Rights. Fundamental rights are the most precious gifts that our constitution offers to its citizens. They are above every other law(though with reasonable restrictions). To protect the existence and subsistence of these fundamental rights, two doctrines are originated under Art 13(1) of the Constitution. Art. 13(1) of the Constitution reads as : ‘ All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.’   Thus, art. 13 (1) talks about pre-constitutional laws. As per Art. 13 (1), all the laws before the enactment of the constitution (pre-constitution laws) that are not in consistence with the Fundamental Rights shall be adjudicated void. ...
6 comments
Read more

Characteristics of Indian Legal System

 Characteristics of Indian Legal System The Constitution of India provides for a single integrated judicial system with Supreme Court at the apex, High Courts at the middle (state level) and the District Courts at the local level. It also provides for an independent and powerful judicial system. The following are the basic characteristics of the Indian Legal System: 1. Single and integrated Judicial System: The constitution establishes a single integrated judicial system for the whole of India.  The Supreme Court is the highest court of the country followed by High Courts and District Courts. The Supreme Court runs and controls the judicial administration of India. All courts of India form links of a single integrated judicial system. 2. Independence of Judiciary The Constitution makes Judiciary truly independent with provisions like: Appointment of Judges by the President. High qualifications for appointment of judges. Independent establishment for Judiciary. Adequate power...
2 comments
Read more