21 Notable Judgments/Orders Delivered By Courts During COVID-19 Lockdown

The outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic has resulted in lockdown across the country in all spheres of activities. However, even during such challenging times, the judiciary has continued its function by evolving to a virtual system of adjudication. The present articles summarises some of the orders passed by the Supreme Court and various High Courts during the first phase of the lockdown. This article forms part of a series where we analyse the judicial activities during the different phases of lockdown.1. E-auction of properties during lock-down stayed Case Number: W.P. No. 6632 of 2020 Forum: Karnataka High Court (Justice Mr. G. Narendar) Date of Order: 24.03.2020 Challenge in brief: The Petitioners challenged the action of Respondent Banks of conducting auction sale of their properties. It was contended that despite the present lockdown, the Bankers have been receiving bids from various interested parties in respect of the properties. The same constitutes a violation of the Lock-down order issued by the Government Order: It was prima facie observed that any activity by any of the Departments beyond the exceptions provided under the Government Order dated 23.03.2020, including the holding of auctions by Banks, would constitute a violation of the Government Order entailing prosecution. Thus, the Court deferred the proposed auction activities till the restrictions imposed under the Government Order in respect of the lockdown are revoked.2. Being critical of government cannot entail police action Name of the case: Dr.Indranil Khan v. State of West Bengal & Ors. Case Number: W.P. No. 5326(W) of 2020 Forum: Calcutta High Court (Justice Mr. I.P. Mukherji) Date of Order: 01.04.2020 Challenge in brief: The Petitioner (medical practitioner) had made several Facebook posts alleging that deficient protective gears were supplied by the government to its doctors attending COVID‐19 virus affected patients in its hospitals. For such posts, he was charged under section 153A of the IPC for the offence of causing disharmony and feeling of hatred which disturb public tranquillity. The Police authorities had interrogated him and seized his mobile phone and sim-card. By way of the writ petition, the Petitioner had challenged the actions of the Police Authority. Order: The High Court observed that an expression of opinion that can cause disrepute to the government cannot be met with such intimidation of the person expressing the opinion by subjecting him to prolonged interrogation, threatening arrest seizing his mobile phone and SIM card. Such methods can be used only in case if a person utilizes this freedom by maliciously circulating material with a view to cause damage to another person or to the public at large or the nation. The liberty of the petitioner can only be curtailed by orders of the court passed in a properly instituted proceeding In the present case none of these ingredients were fulfilled and therefore the Police Authority was directed to immediately return the mobile phone and SIM card of the petitioner. The Authority was further directed that no interrogation shall be initiated without the leave of the court.3. Movement of persons for procurement of food for animals is permitted during lockdown Name of the case: N.Prakashv. State of Kerala and Anr. Case Number: W.P. (C). TMP-28 OF 2020 Forum: Kerala High Court (Justice Mr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Hon'ble Justice Mr. Shaji P. Chaly) Date of Order: 06.04.2020 Challenge in brief: The Petitioner had challenged the denial of vehicle pass to venture out and purchase "Meo-Persian" biscuits for his cats. The Petitioner contended that these biscuits are essential food-items for his cats. Reliance was placed on judgment of the Supreme Court in Animal Welfare Board of India v A. Nagaraja – 2014 (7) SCC 547 to contend that animals have a fundamental right to life, under Article 21 of the Constitution. Hence, the police authorities cannot refuse him a pass for procuring cat food. Further, as per the guidelines issued by the Central Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs, "animal feed and fodder" have been included as "essential items" in respect of which movement is permitted during the lockdown period. Order: The Court observed that several statutes such as the IPC and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and guidelines issued by the World Health Organisation of Animal Health provide for the welfare of animals in addition to making it a punishable offence to kill or injure any animal. Further, introduction of Article 51 A (g), has led to a renewed interpretation of the provisions of the 1960 Act by casting a fundamental duty on every citizen to have compassion for living creatures. A citizen's choice to rear pets is traceable to his fundamental right to privacy as recognised by the Apex Court in Puttaswamy's case, which in...

21 Notable Judgments/Orders Delivered By Courts During COVID-19 Lockdown

Harsha Asnani and Roopadaksha Basu

Tags