''State Has Statutory And Vicarious Liability To Protect Citizens": Madras HC Dismisses PIL Questioning The Legality Of Lockdown With Rs. 50,000 Cost:[Read Order]

The Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed, with exemplary costs, a PIL contending that there is no provision in The Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 or The Disaster Management Act, 2005 to impose a lockdown and therefore, the orders for the same, have been passed without any authority of law besides being arbitrary. The petition argued that the lockdown, as imposed by the government of India on March 24 for the first time, and as lastly extended on May 31, which continues to be in force in the state of Tamil Nadu, is unconstitutional in view of the restriction of movement of persons, gatherings of religious, social and political in nature and night curfew. It is urged that the lockdown is in Violation of Article 19 (b) (d), 21, 25 and 14 of The Constitution of India and further excessive of the National Disaster Management Biological Disasters Guidelines, 2008 and National Disaster Management Plan, 2019. Refuting the aforesaid submission, the division bench appreciated that Section 2 of The Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 confers power upon the State Government to take special measures and prescribe regulations as to dangerous epidemic disease. Section 2 (d) of the said Act defines "disaster" which includes catastrophe, mishap, calamity or grave occurrence in any area, arising from natural or man-made causes, or by accident or negligence which results in substantial loss of life or human suffering or damage to, and destruction of property, or damage to, or degradation of, environment, and is of such a nature or magnitude as to be beyond the coping capacity of the community of the affected area. Similarly, Chapter V of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 deals with measures by the Government for disaster Management. Section 35 (2) (d) of The Disaster Management Act specifically provides that the Central Government shall take measures to ensure that the Ministries or Departments of the Government of India take necessary measures for preparedness to promptly and effectively respond to any threatening disaster situation or disaster. Further Section 35 (2) (i) provides that the Central Government shall take measures as it deems necessary or expedient for the purpose of securing effective implementation of the provisions of this Act. "Therefore, it is not as if the respondents have imposed the lockdown without any authority of law. The power to impose the lockdown is very much available under the aforesaid Acts. The lockdown is one of the measures taken up by the respondents to curb and restrict the spread of the pandemic. Therefore, the imposition of the lockdown as a measure of curtailing the spread of the pandemic by the respondents cannot be said to be arbitrary", concluded the bench. In any event, the Court was of the view that the imposition of lock down or relaxing the lock down is a matter to be decided by the instrumentalities of the Government by taking note of various factors and the ground realities- "This Court cannot, in exercise of power under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, interfere with the decision taken by the respondents in an effort to curb the pandemic". The bench noted that when already similar writ petitions filed as public interest litigation have been dismissed by a coordinate bench of this Court, the present writ petition is not warranted- "The writ petitioner, in our opinion, has filed this writ petition not in any public interest, but otherwise". "The petitioner ought not to have filed the present writ petition styled as a Public Interest Litigation consuming much of our time. We therefore hold that the present writ petition has to be dismissed with exemplary costs. In the light of our above conclusion, we dismiss the writ petition with costs of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) payable by the petitioner to the Honourable Chief Justice Relief Fund", ordered the Court. The bench further wished to emphasise that the entire world is witnessing an extraordinary situation whereby the livelihood of several citizens were affected due to the burgeoning spread of the Pandemic - Covid- 19. Even though efforts are being taken on a war-footing, it's rapid spread could not be curtailed with ease. "It is also to be stated that the State had a statutory as well as vicarious liability to protect its citizens. It is in this direction that the respondents have passed orders imposing lockdown and restricted the movement of the citizens. While so, the question of infringement of fundamental rights will not arise", observed the Court. It reiterated that imposition of lockdown is one of the measures taken by the respondents in the larger interest of its Citizens and to ensure that their health and life are not jeopardised in any manner. The lock down, according to the respondents, is the panacea for all the woes confronted by the Country at the moment. The object of the lock down is only to curtail the spread of the virus in all earnestness. Even according...

''State Has Statutory And Vicarious Liability To Protect Citizens": Madras HC Dismisses PIL Questioning The Legality Of Lockdown With Rs. 50,000 Cost:[Read Order]

Mehal Jain

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mehal Jain

''State Has Statutory And Vicarious Liability To Protect Citizens": Madras HC Dismisses PIL Questioning The Legality Of Lockdown With Rs. 50,000 Cost:[Read Order]

Mehal Jain

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mehal Jain

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers