- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- Local Train Travel for...
Local Train Travel for Unvaccinated: "Can't Claim Personal Liberty If It Affects Another Person's Right To Life" - Maha Govt To Bombay High Court
Sharmeen Hakim
5 Feb 2022 7:22 AM GMT
Personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be asserted if it affects another person's right to life, the Maharashtra Government told the Bombay High Court on Friday defending its stand to allow only fully vaccinated individuals to travel on local trains."So long as you are enjoying your personal liberty under Article 21, it's alright. However, the moment you move out...
Personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be asserted if it affects another person's right to life, the Maharashtra Government told the Bombay High Court on Friday defending its stand to allow only fully vaccinated individuals to travel on local trains.
"So long as you are enjoying your personal liberty under Article 21, it's alright. However, the moment you move out of your personal liberty, you enter the realm of Article 19, then Article 21 is not applicable," Senior Advocate Anil Anturkar, appearing for the State of Maharashtra, submitted.
He added that the State couldn't afford to watch its people die. Therefore, allowing unvaccinated to make use of private transport but not train travel was a reasonable restriction.
The division bench led by Chief Justice Dipankar Datta was hearing a PIL alleging violation of fundamental rights against the unvaccinated and seeking local train travel for all. Following the State's submissions, the Chief Justice asked its counsel for the material based on which the expert committee decided on differentiating between the vaccinated and unvaccinated.
On an earlier query by the court, the Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh said that there was no national plan specifically for the Covid-19 pandemic or discriminating between the vaccinated and unvaccinated.
The court then asked the ASG if the State was violating any direction of the Union by issuing such a circular to which the ASG said, "If there is no policy there is no question of violation. The issue of contrary or not contrary does not arise."
Vaccination is not mandatory but it is desirable that the population get vaccinated because it will prevent the spread of pandemic.
During the hearing, Anturkar discussed the interplay between Article 19 and Article 21. He said that between the right of life and personal liberty of a handful of persons on one hand and the right of life and personal liberty of larger population on the other, the State would be justified in protecting the right of life of greater number of persons.
"Vaccination is not compulsory. Nobody is compelled to take the vaccination. Vaccination, so long as it lives in the nest of "personal liberty" as contemplated by Article 21, there is no problem. But when it leaves "personal liberty" under Article 21 and enters into the field of "liberty" as contemplated by Article 19, then the right of life and personal liberty cannot be claimed so as to affect the right of life and personal liberty of others."
He further submitted that the State's decision was not manifestly arbitrary for a remedy under Article 14 as people were permitted to travel by private vehicles and on foot. Moreover, the decision was in the public interest.
The State has also argued that its orders dated November 27, 2021 is "Law" within the meaning of Article 19 (5) of the Constitution of India and not merely "executive action" under Article 162 of the Constitution.
Further, Anturkar explained the reality of travelling by Mumbai local during peak hours. "Take the case of the 9 am Mumbai local train. You don't know whether the arm you're using is yours or someone else's. You do not know whose hands your nose or mouth are touching & it's difficult to maintain physical distancing."
Next Story
