Bombay High Court: Quarantine Facilities cannot be used for Preventive Detention or as a Punitive Measure

Must Read

Writ Petition for Compensation Accepted by Calcutta High Court 

Introduction The Petitioner Purna Ch. Biswas filed a Writ Petition with the complaint that their claims for a higher quantum...

No Members Could Be Disqualified Without Authorisation by Political Party: Gujarat High Court

Excerpt The dispute application no.7 of 2020 filed by respondent no.2 before designated authority. Thereafter the designated authority order dated...

Delhi High Court Directs Delhi Jal Board To Make Supply of Potable Drinking Water

The High Court of Delhi in the matter of Delhi Sainik Cooperation Housing Ltd. v. Union of India &...

Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Security To BJP Leader Alleged for Not Supporting Farmers Protest

The Order had come in the form of a Writ Petition filed by Tikshan Sood under Article 226 of...

Lahore High Court Outlaws Two-Finger Virginity Test

The Lahore High Court in Pakistan has outlawed the use and conduct of virginity tests, namely, the use of...

London Court Rejects Assange’s Extradition – What Happens Now? 

Earlier last week, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser, sitting in the Westminster Magistrates’ Court denied the Government of the U.S.A.'s...

Follow us

On 5th May 2020, the Bombay High Court passed an order in the case of Mahendra Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Ors.  It barred the use of quarantine centres to hold people who the police considered as a nuisance.

Brief Facts of the Case 

Mr. K. Narayanan is the President of the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU). He was distributing food and essential supplies to migrant workers in the lockdown. Besides this, the CITU had called for a national protest. It was to show the deteriorating condition of the migrant workers. The protest was to take place on 21st April. 

According to the present petition, the petitioner was working on that day. He along with his colleagues were distributing food and other essential supplies. They also followed the Social distancing norms. They were also carrying flags/placards to distribute in protest proceedings. 

Further, the petition states that the petitioner had a rough relationship with Mr.Ganame. He is the Senior P.I. of D.N. Nagar Police Station. Further, P.I. detained the Petitioner without any reason on 21st April. Mr. Ganame without reason asked Mr. Narayanan to proceed to the Police Station. Mr. Abhishek Trimukhe, DCP, Zone-IX was present along with him.

Thereafter, the police took Mr. Narayanan to a private lab. The Lab tested him for the Virus but he didn’t have any symptoms. The quarantine facility then took him. He also didn’t get the copy of the test reports.  

His colleagues got the results independently from the lab and found it to be negative. The Facility has told the Petitioner not to carry his mobile phone inside.  The police charged him with Sections 188, 269 and 270 of IPC. Section 51(B) of the National Disaster Management Act and Section 11 of the COVID-19 Regulations were also imposed. However, all these are bailable offences. The petition alleged that Mr. Narayanan was malafidely sent to the quarantine facility. He was also held beyond the prescribed 14 days period despite testing negative. This is attributed to the animosity of the P.I. with the petitioner.

Court’s Decision

Coram- Justice Revati Mohite Dere

The Court found it difficult to believe the respondent. The argument of the A.P.P. stating that the petitioner handed over his phone to the police was preposterous. The A.P.P. was also unable to produce a circular barring a person from carrying his phone to the quarantine centre. The Court observed that the police had no explanation to hold the petitioner beyond 14 days . The corporation handling the quarantine facility waited for the instructions of the police. The Court questioned its intention about the same. 

The Court held that the petition alleging malafide confinement prima facie held substance. Since there was no impediment on Mr. Narayan’s release on the same day, the Court disposed off the said petition. The Court held that “quarantine facilities cannot be used by the Police to keep away people, who according to them, are of nuisance value.” The police cannot use it as preventive detention or as a punitive measure.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for 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

Writ Petition for Compensation Accepted by Calcutta High Court 

Introduction The Petitioner Purna Ch. Biswas filed a Writ Petition with the complaint that their claims for a higher quantum of compensation have not yet...

No Members Could Be Disqualified Without Authorisation by Political Party: Gujarat High Court

Excerpt The dispute application no.7 of 2020 filed by respondent no.2 before designated authority. Thereafter the designated authority order dated 28.10.2020 disqualified the petitioner and...

Delhi High Court Directs Delhi Jal Board To Make Supply of Potable Drinking Water

The High Court of Delhi in the matter of Delhi Sainik Cooperation Housing Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors held that right to...

Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Security To BJP Leader Alleged for Not Supporting Farmers Protest

The Order had come in the form of a Writ Petition filed by Tikshan Sood under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition before...

Lahore High Court Outlaws Two-Finger Virginity Test

The Lahore High Court in Pakistan has outlawed the use and conduct of virginity tests, namely, the use of the “two-finger” virginity test and...

London Court Rejects Assange’s Extradition – What Happens Now? 

Earlier last week, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser, sitting in the Westminster Magistrates’ Court denied the Government of the U.S.A.'s request to the U.K. to...

Calcutta High Court Decides in Favor of Contractor as He Accidentally Pays an Excessively High Amount

Introduction The present writ petition has been filed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to revoke the Petitioner’s offer as...

Petition Filed in Delhi High Court Challenging the New Privacy Policy of WhatsApp

A petition has been raised before the Delhi High Court challenging the updated privacy policy of the instant messaging app, WhatsApp. It is accused of looking into the virtual activities of the users,

Bombay High Court Says Pleas Against the Rejection of Nomination Before the Polls Is Not Maintainable

Bombay High Court on Wednesday held that a candidate cannot challenge his nomination by filing a writ petition before a court prior to the polls after his nominations have already been rejected by the Returning Officer (RO) for the Panchayat elections of January 15.

Bombay HC: It Will Be Difficult if Civic Bodies Don’t Take Action on Illegal Constructions

The Bombay High Court said on Wednesday that if the Municipal Corporations do not take action on the illegal constructions, things will become very difficult. This observation was made by a bench comprising Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice Girish Kulkarni while hearing a PIL after the Bhiwandi building collapse on September 21st, 2020 which led to the death of 39 lives. Mumbai Thane, Ulhasnagar, Kalyan-Dombivli, Vasai-Virar, Navi Mumbai, and Bhiwandi-Nizampur corporations were filed as respondents.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -