`We are proud of our PM’: Kerala High Court lambasts petitioner for objecting to Modi’s photo on vaccination certificates

Kerala High Court on Monday hit out at a petitioner for objecting to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s picture on the vaccination certificates

“He is our Prime Minister, not the Prime Minister of any other country. He came to power through our mandate. Merely because you have political differences, you cannot challenge this…Why are you ashamed of our PM? 100 crore people don’t seem to have an issue with this so why do you? Everyone has different political opinions, but he is still our prime minister. You are wasting judicial time,” Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed.

The petitioner pointed out that the vaccination certificates issued by other countries did not carry the photo of their respective prime ministers. To this the Court responded:

“They may not be proud of their Prime Minister, but we are proud of ours. You should be proud that your vaccination certificate carries the photograph of your PM,” the court said

The petitioner’s counsel replied, “Whether one should be proud or not is a personal choice.”

The Court also noted that the petitioner was the State-level master coach of the Jawaharlal Nehru Leadership Institute of New Delhi and remarked: “You work at an Institute named after a Prime Minister. Why don’t you ask the university to take that down as well?”

Advocate Ajit Joy appearing for the petitioner argued that a vaccination certificate was his private space and he has certain rights over it. He argued that since the petitioner had paid for his vaccination, the state has no right to claim the credit by affixing a photograph of the Prime Minister on the certificate.

He also referred to guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court for campaigns using public money in Common Cause versus Union of India. He said no individual can be credited for the launch of an initiative or be celebrated for achievements of a certain policy of the state at government expense. This includes the Prime Minister, he argued.

The respondents attacked the very maintainability of the petition, alleging that no constitutional rights were violated in the first place.  

However, despite its discouragement, the Court stated that it will go through the pleadings in detail with an open mind and decide if it has any merits before dismissing it.