Top
Top Stories

"Cannot Have Policies Inconsistent With Central Guidelines": SC Pulls Up Noida (UP) Authorities For Quarantine Policies Contrary To Stipulated National Guidelines

Sanya Talwar
12 Jun 2020 10:46 AM GMT
"Cannot Have Policies Inconsistent With Central Guidelines": SC Pulls Up Noida (UP) Authorities For Quarantine Policies Contrary To Stipulated National Guidelines
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Supreme Court on Friday sought response from State of Uttar Pradesh as to why there was an inconsistency in Quarantine guidelines (for Covid) issued by the Noida (UP) Authority and those of National guidelines.

A bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, SK Kaul & MR Shah passed this order in a plea pertaining to the regulation of inter-state movement in Delhi NCR prominently in the cities of Noida, Gurgaon and Ghaziabad adjoining to the NCT of Delhi, due to the contradictory policies of these various states and their constant altering thereof.

Justice MR Shah: "You can't have a policy in the state which is contrary to the national guideline"

On June 4, the Top Court had directed the concerned government authorities of Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, and Haryana to hold a meeting and mutually, along with the Central Government devise a common plan/policy/platform to facilitate movement across state borders in the NCR cities within one week.

In furtherance of the above, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted today before the Court that a meeting to that effect was convened and Haryana & Delhi inter-state movement was not a problem. However, Uttar Pradesh had raised objections regarding allowance of unrestricted movement of the state with Delhi, Mehta added.

SG: "Meeting convened between Haryana, Delhi and UP. Haryana and Delhi has no problem. However, Uttar Pradesh feels that only essential movement should be allowed"

Counsel appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh, Ms. Garima Prasad submitted that the need for controlled movement between the two states was extremely important. She stated that Delhi had more infections than the State of UP and highlighted statistics, according to which 45 % of the infections in Noida were attributed to Delhi. 

Prasad: "Essential services are allowed, lawyers are also being given access. We have an e-pass system. We still have institutional quarantine, delhi does not necessarily."

At this juncture, Justice Kaul posed a question to the Counsel of UP and asked why there was an inconsistency in orders issued by the Noida DM recently in terms of institutional quarantine and home quarantine. 

The bench insisted that there must not be inconsistencies in this regard as it could soon lead to chaos.

The Court listed the Matter for June 17 as the next date of hearing.

The PIL, as led by Mr. Mukul Talwar, Senior Advocate and filed by counsels Anindita Mitra and Aman Bhalla, was instituted earlier last month challenging the unconstitutionality of the decisions of Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, and Delhi Administrations in restricting the movement of individuals for permissible activities and the necessity of applying for passes for each of these states on various State government portals.

Identifying the hardships caused to the common man across NCR, the Court had  had ordered that these states endeavour to find a common programme and portal for interstate movement within the NCR. 

Next Story