IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the provisions of the IT Act regarding sensitive personal data do not create criminal liability, and that mandatory inquiry is required under Section 202 of the CrPC when the accused is outside the jurisdiction of the magistrate.

ORDER :

The Honourable Mr.Justice N.Anand Venkatesh

This is a petition filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.4 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Udumalpet.

2. The facts leading to filing of this case are as follows :

(i) The respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioner company and its officers on the ground that they committed offences under Section 43A and 72A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short, the IT Act) and Sections 52 and 199 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC).

(ii) The crux of the complaint is that the respondent was forced to vaccinate himself during the pandemic period. The respondent took a stand that he would not vaccinate, that the sensitive personal data with regard to his refusal to vaccinate himself was circulated and thereby it violated his right of privacy and that it was an unauthorized circulation of the personal data among the employees, which is an offence under Section 43A of the IT Act.

(iii) The further grievance of the respondent is that there was a principal and agent relationship between the petitioner company and the respondent, that they were bound by a lawful contract, that the petitioner company and its officers violated the same by circulating the fact that the respondent did not vaccinate himself and that due to such insistence, wrongful loss was caused to the respondent wherein he lost his employment. Therefore, according to the respondent, an offence has been committed under Section 72A of the IT Act.

(iv) The respondent further submitted in the complaint that the petitioner company and its officers did not exhibit good faith as required under Section 52 of the IPC and that they made a false declaration/statement in their legal response as if the respondent was not compelled to undergo vaccination. The Court below took cognizance of the complaint by order dated 23.2.2023 and issued summons to the accused persons namely the petitioners. The proceedings in C.C.No.4 of 2023 on the file of the Court below is put to challenge in this quash petition.

3. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the respondent, who is appearing in person.

4. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the petitioner company wanted its employees to vaccinate themselves informing that they had a tie up with some of the hospitals where free vaccination was done. While undertaking this exercise, the petitioner company was identifying the employees, who did not vaccinate themselves and had rather requested them to vaccinate to safeguard themselves from the virus attack. In the list that was prepared with regard to persons, who did not vaccinate themselves, the name of the respondent was also mentioned.

5. The respondent took a stand that he would not vaccinate and that he would not mark/inform his vaccination status also. The petitioner company was insisting that vaccination would be mandatory in order to comply with the Covid Safety Protocol. The respondent was protesting for the same.

6. The communication was going back and forth between the petitioner company and its employees. In the said process, the petitioner company was identifying those employees, who did not vaccinate themselves and in the list prepared with regard to that, the name of the respondent was also found.

7. The respondent became hyper sensitive about the fact that his name was found in the list of persons, who did not vaccinate. Therefore, he had sent a detailed e-mail communication dated 19.7.2021 to the effect that his name should not be circulated since it involved sensitive personal information and that his status as to vaccination must be kept secret. Ultimately, the respondent issued a notice dated 14.8.2021 to the Chief Human Resource Officer of the petitioner company complaining that he was being compelled and coerced to wear face mask, get tested for Corona and get vaccinated and that the same would be contrary to his basic human rights.

8. On