Bombay HC: Government Order Imposing Travel Restrictions Not Violative of Fundamental Rights

Must Read

Calcutta High Court Rejects the Petition Challenging the Bid’s Rejection Filed on Seeking Condonation of Delay Due to Pandemic Interventions in Absence of Satisfactory...

Case: Shiba Prosad Banerjee vs The State of West Bengal and others The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya of Calcutta...

Calcutta High Court Reiterated the Scope of the Grounds for Exercising Its Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction.

Case: Shreya Beria vs Vedant Bhagat The Calcutta HC on 20th January 2021, dismissed the criminal revision filed by...

Gujarat High Court Allows a Family Suit to Be Transferred From Family Court, Surat to the Family Court, Bhavnagar

The Court directed that in light of the circumstances of the present case, the application of the applicant- wife...

Telangana HC Grants Two Days to Convey the Decision of Appropriate Notification and Counselling to the Higher Secondary Department

Excerpt In Telangana Republican Party Trp vs The State Of Telangana, on 18 January 2021, Telangana High Court directed the...

Telangana HC: Applications Have to Be Made Through Online Web Portal “Dharani” for Mutation of Names

Excerpt In P. Manohar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others, on 18 January 2021, Telangana High Court...

Follow us

The present petition was filed before the Bombay High Court challenging the travel restrictions imposed by the government’s order. The Court dismissed the same and held that the order was in the public interest and does not violate any fundamental rights.

Brief Facts of the Case

The petitioner has filed a petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Indian Constitution before the Bombay High Court. The said petition challenges the Government Order of 7th August 2020 which was issued by the Director of Disaster Management, Maharashtra. The aforesaid Government order imposes travel restrictions on people wanting to travel to Ratnagiri District. The petitioner has challenged this order stating that it interferes with his fundamental rights.

Petitioner’s Submissions

The petitioner has submitted that the abovementioned order curbs his freedom to travel to Ratnagiri District to celebrate Ganesh Festival. The petitioner, in particular, cites issues with Clause 1 and 2 of the said order. Clause 1 refers to a mandatory 10-day home quarantine if one travels to Ratnagiri District before 12 August 2020. This applies irrespective of whether the person travelling has COVID-19. Clause 2, on the other hand, makes it mandatory for all persons travelling after 12 August 2020 to take a COVID-19 test. Furthermore, it is conditioned that a person will be permitted to travel only when he/she tests negative.

The petitioner has submitted that restriction to undergo quarantine is a problematic one. The said restriction is unscientific, harmful to human health, has psychological effects, and affects social relations. It results in frustration, anger, anxiety, economic hardship, etc. The petitioner has submitted that he doesn’t wish to be quarantined since he is prone to anxiety.

Court’s Observations

The Court has opined that other than the effects of quarantine, the present petition is devoid of any other data on the other grounds raised by the petitioner. The Court has observed that the directives issued by the Government order are merely to ensure that citizens do not face any difficulty in visiting places in Ratnagiri District. The said directives have been issued after taking into consideration several orders issued earlier regarding passenger transportation in light of the pandemic. The Court finds it surprising that the petitioner only refers to one government order in the petition despite similar orders which were passed before.

The Court has acknowledged the numerous steps taken by the State to contain the pandemic, including the imposition of lockdown from time to time. The State has also issued several Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) based on the intensity of COVID-19 cases in an area. The Court has pointed out the effectiveness of social distancing in controlling the spread of COVID-19 and highlighted the condition of the State in comparison to the others.

Court’s Decision

The Bombay High Court has relied on the judgment passed by a Division Bench in Jan Swasthya Abhiyan & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra. In the aforesaid judgment, the Court upheld the discretion of the State to make decisions regarding the management of the pandemic. In the present case, the Court has observed that the Government’s Order in question, and observes that it does not infringe on any fundamental rights of the people. Furthermore, it ensures that the people do not face any difficulty while travelling to their native place in Ratnagiri District and has been issued to contain the spread of the pandemic. In light of the above, the Court has dismissed the petition.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Calcutta High Court Rejects the Petition Challenging the Bid’s Rejection Filed on Seeking Condonation of Delay Due to Pandemic Interventions in Absence of Satisfactory...

Case: Shiba Prosad Banerjee vs The State of West Bengal and others The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya of Calcutta High Court on 22nd January...

Calcutta High Court Reiterated the Scope of the Grounds for Exercising Its Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction.

Case: Shreya Beria vs Vedant Bhagat The Calcutta HC on 20th January 2021, dismissed the criminal revision filed by the Petitioners (wife) challenging the...

Calcutta High Court: Deceased’s Wife Has the Sole Right Over His Preserved Sperm; Father Doesn’t Have Any Fundamental Right Over Son’s Progeny Without the...

Case: Asok Kumar Chatterjee vs. The Union of India & Ors. The Calcutta High Court dismissed the petition by the Petitioner (father) on 19th...

Gujarat High Court Allows a Family Suit to Be Transferred From Family Court, Surat to the Family Court, Bhavnagar

The Court directed that in light of the circumstances of the present case, the application of the applicant- wife to transfer the case from...

Telangana HC Grants Two Days to Convey the Decision of Appropriate Notification and Counselling to the Higher Secondary Department

Excerpt In Telangana Republican Party Trp vs The State Of Telangana, on 18 January 2021, Telangana High Court directed the Higher Education Department for passing...

Telangana HC: Applications Have to Be Made Through Online Web Portal “Dharani” for Mutation of Names

Excerpt In P. Manohar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others, on 18 January 2021, Telangana High Court directed that one has to...

Indonesian Spa Therapist Approaches Supreme Court Regarding Illegal Detention Followed by Raid at the Spa

An Indonesian spa therapist has moved to Supreme Court, whilst challenging an HC order which provided relief to the police inspector who was involved in the illegal detention of the spa therapist in a woman’s home which was followed by a police raid at the spa.

Questions of Forgery, Tampering Not Capable of Summary Adjudication Under Article 226 in Delhi High Court’s Jee Marks Case

Questions of fraud, forgery, and tampering require elaborate evidence as per the ruling of the Delhi High Court making it incapable of summary adjudication...

Supreme Court: Urgent and Immediate Reforms Needed in the Legal Education Due To Mushrooming of Law Schools

The Supreme Court, on Saturday, said that there is an urgent need for reforming the legal education in the country as its quality is being affected due to the ‘mushrooming’ of Law Colleges.

Delhi High Court Ruled Disclosure of Interest in Information Sought Under Rti Act Necessary to Establish Bonafides of Applicant

The Delhi HC opined that disclosure of the interest of information is necessary for the information sought under the RTI Act for establishing bonafide...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -