A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The decision in Kush Kalra v. Union of India and Others examines the legality and constitutional validity of the practice adopted by several States and Union Territories during the COVID-19 pandemic of affixing posters outside the residences of COVID-19 positive persons undergoing home isolation. The writ petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, raised serious concerns relating to right to privacy, human dignity, and non-discrimination, particularly in the context of public health emergencies.

The petitioner challenged the administrative actions of State authorities as being arbitrary, stigmatizing, and unsupported by any statutory mandate under the Disaster Management Act, 2005. The Supreme Court confined its adjudication to the narrow but crucial issue of whether such a practice was authorised by the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The Court relied heavily on the Revised Guidelines for Home Isolation dated 02.07.2020 and the subsequent D.O. Letter dated 19.11.2020, which clarified that no instruction existed for pasting posters outside residences of infected persons.

Without entering into a detailed adjudication on privacy jurisprudence, the Court restrained States from continuing the practice unless expressly authorised by a competent authority under the 2005 Act. The judgment reinforces administrative discipline during emergencies and underscores that even during disasters, executive action must remain anchored to statutory authority and constitutional values.

Keywords: Right to Privacy, COVID-19, Human Dignity, Disaster Management Act, 2005, Public Health Emergency

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The judgment arose in the extraordinary backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic, during which States across India adopted varied administrative measures to contain the spread of the virus. One such measure involved the public identification of COVID-19 positive individuals by affixing posters outside their residences, particularly when such persons were placed under home isolation. The petitioner approached the Supreme Court directly under Article 32, invoking its jurisdiction to protect fundamental rights, alleging that the practice amounted to an egregious violation of right to privacy and right to live with dignity under Article 21.

The petitioner highlighted the absence of any statutory or executive sanction for such disclosure, pointing out that neither the Disaster Management Act, 2005 nor the guidelines framed by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare contemplated public display of personal health data. The grievance was not merely legal but social, emphasizing the stigma, discrimination, and psychological trauma faced by infected persons whose private medical condition was exposed to neighbours and resident welfare associations.

The Union of India, through the learned Solicitor General, placed on record the relevant guidelines dated 02.07.2020 and clarified the central government’s position through a D.O. letter dated 19.11.2020. These documents categorically stated that there was no requirement to affix posters or signage outside residences of COVID-19 positive persons. The Court consciously limited its scope to examining whether States could continue such practices in the absence of authority under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, thereby avoiding a wider constitutional pronouncement.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner, Kush Kalra, challenged the actions of multiple States and Union Territories that had directed local authorities to paste posters outside the homes of persons who tested positive for COVID-19 and were undergoing home isolation. These posters typically indicated that the occupants were COVID-19 positive, thereby alerting neighbours and the general public. According to the petitioner, this resulted in public shaming, social ostracisation, and invasion of personal privacy.

It was pleaded that names of infected persons were also being circulated through WhatsApp groups of resident welfare associations and neighbourhood committees. Such circulation, according to the petitioner, lacked consent and violated the confidentiality of medical information. The petitioner argued that illness could not be a ground for differential treatment under Article 14, and that forced disclosure of health status struck at the core of human dignity.

The petitioner relied upon Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 to underline that privacy, including informational privacy, is a constitutionally protected right. It was further contended that the practice was counterproductive, as fear of public stigma discouraged people from getting tested.

On the other hand, the Union of India clarified that the central government had never issued any instruction mandating such posters. It was submitted that the Revised Guidelines for Home Isolation dated 02.07.2020 did not envisage any such measure. The subsequent D.O. letter dated 19.11.2020 reiterated this position and requested States to strictly adhere to the guidelines. The Court noted that certain States like Delhi and Punjab had already withdrawn such orders.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether affixing posters outside residences of COVID-19 positive persons violates the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution?
ii. Whether such disclosure amounts to arbitrary and discriminatory treatment contrary to Article 14?
iii. Whether States and Union Territories can adopt measures not contemplated under the Disaster Management Act, 2005?
iv. Whether public health emergencies justify invasion of informational privacy without statutory backing?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the petitioner submitted that affixing posters publicly disclosed sensitive medical information and amounted to a direct infringement of informational privacy as recognised in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India. It was argued that dignity forms an inseparable component of Article 21, and forced public identification reduced individuals to objects of social stigma.

It was further contended that illness cannot be a constitutionally permissible ground for discrimination under Article 14. The petitioner emphasised that COVID-19 patients were already subject to restrictions on movement under isolation protocols, and additional exposure through posters imposed an unreasonable and disproportionate burden.

The petitioner also argued that the practice lacked any rational nexus with public health objectives. On the contrary, it discouraged testing and reporting, thereby undermining containment efforts. The absence of any guideline or statutory provision authorising such action rendered it ultra vires the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the respondent, represented by the learned Solicitor General, submitted that the Union of India had not issued any instruction for affixing posters. Reliance was placed on the Revised Guidelines for Home Isolation dated 02.07.2020, which governed the management of mild and asymptomatic cases.

It was pointed out that the D.O. letter dated 19.11.2020 expressly clarified that the guidelines did not permit such disclosure and requested States to ensure strict compliance. The Union distanced itself from actions taken by individual States and emphasised that no obligation existed upon States to paste posters.

The respondent submitted that in view of the clear position of the central government, the grievance stood substantially addressed, and no further adjudication on broader constitutional questions was necessary.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Article 21 of the Constitution of India
ii. Article 14 of the Constitution of India
iii. Article 32 of the Constitution of India
iv. Sections 6, 10 and 72 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005

I) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court disposed of the writ petition by holding that the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare did not authorise the practice of affixing posters outside residences of COVID-19 positive persons. The Court took note of the Revised Guidelines dated 02.07.2020 and the D.O. letter dated 19.11.2020, which unequivocally clarified the central government’s position.

The Court observed that although extensive submissions were made on privacy, dignity, and fundamental rights, such issues did not require consideration in light of the clear executive instructions. The absence of statutory backing under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 meant that States could not independently devise measures that infringed individual rights.

The Court categorically stated that no State or Union Territory was required to paste posters outside residences of COVID-19 positive persons as of the date of judgment. It further held that such an exercise could only be undertaken if expressly directed by a competent authority under the 2005 Act. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of without issuing directions against individual States.

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

The binding principle emerging from the judgment is that executive action during a disaster must strictly conform to statutory authority and centrally issued guidelines. In the absence of any provision under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 or guidelines issued thereunder, States cannot adopt measures that have the effect of infringing fundamental rights.

The Court implicitly reaffirmed that administrative convenience or perceived public interest cannot justify disclosure of personal health information without legal sanction. The ratio rests on the doctrine of legality, which mandates that every State action affecting rights must have a legal basis.

By restraining States from affixing posters unless authorised by a competent authority, the Court reinforced federal discipline and uniformity in disaster response. The judgment underscores that even during public health emergencies, constitutional governance cannot be replaced by ad hoc executive practices.

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court made incidental observations regarding the importance of adherence to centrally issued guidelines and the need for States to avoid practices that may stigmatise individuals. While not entering into a full-fledged analysis of privacy jurisprudence, the Court’s approach reflected sensitivity towards dignity and informational autonomy.

The observation that States could resort to such measures only upon express direction under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 hints at the constitutional limits of executive discretion. These remarks, though not forming the ratio, reinforce the principle that emergencies do not suspend constitutional values.

c) GUIDELINES 

i. States and Union Territories shall strictly follow guidelines issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
ii. No posters or signage shall be affixed outside residences of COVID-19 positive persons unless authorised under the Disaster Management Act, 2005.
iii. Any deviation from central guidelines must be backed by express statutory or delegated authority.
iv. Disclosure of personal health information must be avoided in the absence of compelling legal justification.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1

b. Important Statutes Referred

i. The Constitution of India
ii. The Disaster Management Act, 2005