'Why should my vaccine certificate, which I got paying my own money, have the picture of the prime minister?'
So many Indians who got themselves vaccinated against COVID-19 may have wondered why Prime Minister Narendra Damodardas Modi's photograph was prominently displayed on their personal vaccination certificates.
Only Peter Myaliparambil, an RTI activist and a Congress worker from Kaduthuruthy in Kerala's Kottayam district, decided to question this in court.
It is another matter that a Kerala high court judge reprimanded the petitioner in the Peter Myaliparambil vs the Union of India and Other case and fined him for wasting the court's time.
"No other world leader has used vaccination for propaganda," Peter Myaliparambil tells Shobha Warrier/Rediff.com.
What was the reason behind you filing a petition in the Kerala high court questioning the prime minister's photograph on the COVID-19 vaccine certificate?
Because I went to a private hospital, paid Rs 750 and got myself vaccinated. Not just me, many others also had to pay from their pockets, and get the vaccine from private hospitals.
Why should my vaccine certificate which I got paying my own money, have the picture of the prime minister?
I feel it was an infringement of my fundamental rights offered by the Constitution of India.
This is not the first time that mass vaccination is happening in this country; it has happened before too. But no prime minister in the country chose to have his or her photo in the personalised document of an individual.
Another reason is, what we experienced was a pandemic, and all the countries in the world have vaccinated their people.
Not a single country including the US, UK or any European country issued vaccination certificates with the photo of the prime minister or the President of those countries. No other world leader has used vaccination for propaganda.
So, not just in the history of India, but in the history of the world also, we have not seen a behaviour like this.
That's why I decided to file a case in the court.
You said, you got the vaccine from a private hospital and that's why you decided to file a case. Do you justify having the prime minister's picture on the vaccination certificates given to those who got themselves vaccinated in government hospitals?
No. Even if you are giving the vaccine from government hospitals, what you have used is public money. How can you justify vaccinating people using public money from the government fund, and using it for a person's media campaign?
We clearly mentioned in our petition that 'according to the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court for campaigns using public money in Common Cause vs Union of India, no individual can be credited for the launch of an initiative or be celebrated for achievements of a certain policy of the State on government expense.
Also, government messaging and campaigns, especially when it uses government funds, should not personify any leader of the political party.
In my case and many others' also, it was not the government that gave me the vaccine.
In fact, I had asked the central government for a vaccine certificate without the PM's photo, but I did not get any response.
I fear this will lead to unprecedented situations where you will soon see pictures of chief ministers of the states or even panchayat presidents on personal documents. For example, the panchayat president may decide to have his picture on my land ownership certificate.
What will we do if ruling parties use government documents for their own propaganda?
As this is against the fundamental rights of a citizen, how can I as a citizen of this country remain silent?
Did you expect a positive response from the court?
Of course, I definitely expected a positive response.
Yes, initially we had apprehensions about the court accepting the petition. But once the court accepted the petition, we were quite optimistic about the outcome.
But we were shocked when the court asked, why didn't you question the picture of the Father of the Nation on currency notes?
We said in the argument, a currency note is not a private document, it is a public document which moves from my pocket to somebody else's. I am just a custodian of the note when it is with me.
Next, only the Reserve Bank of India can print currency notes, and as per the law followed by RBI, no currency note is valid without the photo of the Father of the Nation.
We asked, is there a law in this country that says a private document can have the picture of the prime minister?
We also wanted to know whether it was done with the knowledge and instruction by the prime minister himself.
So, the previous bench at the high court sent notices to the central and the state government for an explanation on the issue. But both the governments asked for time to respond.
But the third single bench at the court came out with a verdict without even waiting for an explanation from the governments.
The court asked you, why are you ashamed of the prime minister's photograph on the vaccine certificate? What would you say to this question?
That was the question by the single bench. We never said in our petition that we were ashamed of the prime minister's photo.
What we said was, this was against the fundamental rights of a citizen, and also against the Constitution of India.
The court also accused me of doing this for publicity and for political gains. What publicity am I going to get out of this?
Did any political party express any opinion on this issue? Did any political party offer support to me?
Are you not a member of the Congress party?
I am only a member of the Congress party who works at the grassroot level. My work is confined to the panchayat level. I am not a leader of the party. I am just one among the crores of Congress party workers, that's all.
Does that mean this was a personal petition, and nothing to do with the party?
Yes, this was a personal petition. I have filed many such petitions in the past too.
I wanted to show that even an ordinary citizen can raise his voice on certain issues.
IMAGE: Peter Myaliparambil. Photograph: Kind courtesy Peter MyaliparambilYou were reprimanded by the court saying you were wasting judicial time, so the court would dispose of the petition as it didn't find any merit in it...
If my petition did not have any merit, how did the then judge let us file it? He would have rejected it at that time itself if he did not see any merit in what we said.
It was the third judge who made an observation like this.
The court also asked was JNU's Leadership Institute where you worked as a master coach also named after a prime minister...
Interestingly, the court got confused with the Jawaharlal Nehru Leadership Institute with JNU. Where I worked as a trainer was a private training institute which was named after Jawaharlal Nehru, and it has nothing to do with JNU.
I also believe that Nehru was an unparalleled leader this country has seen.
The court has also slapped a penalty of Rs 1 lakh for wasting the court's time, but the fact is, it was not a public interest litigation. There was no precedent in slapping a fine on cases like mine.
But I am glad that lots of people have come forward to help us in this.
Anyway, we have filed a writ petition.
I am also happy that many people have contacted me saying what I have raised are genuine questions.
Feature Presentation: Ashish Narsale/Rediff.com
