Centre Informs Delhi High Court of Not Having Issued Guidelines Directing People to Wear Mask When Alone in Vehicle

Must Read

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court,...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first...

Delhi High Court Seeks Response From Centre, RBI in PIL to Regulate Online Lending Platforms

A notice had been issued by the Delhi HC in a PIL that sought regulation of online lending platforms...

“Consensual Affair” Cannot Be Defence Against the Charge of Kidnapping of the Minor, Sentence Reduced in View of Age Difference: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the appeal against the conviction under the charges of kidnapping and discussed whether the punishment was...

Follow us

Excerpt:

The Central Government had told the Delhi High Court that it hadn’t issued any guidelines directing people to wear masks. This guideline was specifically about wearing a mask while travelling alone in a vehicle (Saurabh Sharma vs. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, East and Ors).

Brief Facts:

A Petition was filed by Advocate Saurabh Sharma. The Petitioner was fined Rs. 500 for not wearing a mask while driving alone in his car and thus, sought compensation of Rs ten lakh. An affidavit was filed by the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India for this Petition. The Centre maintained that public health was a State subject by virtue of Entry 6 of List III of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Hence, public health and hospital was the primary and exclusive responsibility of the State government. Joby P Varghese filed the Petition. Devesh Singh represented the Delhi Government. Affidavit for the Health Ministry was filed by Advocate Farman Ali. 

Contentions:

The Petitioner stated that the imposition of the fine was unjust and illegal. The reason was that he was alone in his personal, private vehicle.

One of the Respondents answered that they had not issued any guidelines directing people to wear masks while travelling alone in a vehicle. The Affidavit stated that health was a state subject and the present matter prima facie pertains to Delhi Government. It was stated that a personal vehicle was not a private zone by the Delhi Government.

The Government of India and the State Governments had been working in collaboration to tackle COVID-19 pandemic. The Affidavit stated that no directions from the Central Government include mandatory wearing of masks. This is specifically when a person was alone in a vehicle. 

The Centre also considered provisions of Section 22 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. Under this, the State Executive Committee was empowered to implement the guidelines of the Central Government, in its local context and epidemiology.

Court’s Observation and Decision:

The Central Government prayed for its removal from the list of parties in the Petition. However last year, the Aam Aadmi Party government had told the High Court that it was mandatory for a person to wear a mask even on being alone in a personal vehicle.  The next hearing would be held shortly.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & 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

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being imposed.  Brief facts of the case This...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.  Brief facts of the...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Bhuj in the case of...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first consignment, on 10.06.2020 and the,...

Delhi High Court Seeks Response From Centre, RBI in PIL to Regulate Online Lending Platforms

A notice had been issued by the Delhi HC in a PIL that sought regulation of online lending platforms (Dharanidhar Karimojji vs UOI). Brief Facts: The...

“Consensual Affair” Cannot Be Defence Against the Charge of Kidnapping of the Minor, Sentence Reduced in View of Age Difference: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the appeal against the conviction under the charges of kidnapping and discussed whether the punishment was to be enhanced or not.   Brief...

Delhi HC to Municipal Corp: Paucity of Funds Not an Excuse for Non-Payment of Salaries and Pensions

The Delhi High Court ruled that the paucity of funds cannot be an excuse and pulled up municipal corporations for not paying salaries and pensions to their employees as the right to receive payment is a fundamental right guaranteed in our constitution.

US Supreme Court Reinstates Restriction on Abortion Pills

The Supreme Court of the United States granted the Trump administration’s request to reinstate federal rules requiring women to make in-person visits to hospitals...

Supreme Court Upheld “Environmental Rule of Law” in NGT Decision to Demolish Illegal Hotel on Forest Land

This case concerns the dispute relating to the additional construction of hotel-cum-restaurant structure in the Bus Stand Complex along with a bus stand and...

UK Supreme Court Rules in Favour of Policyholders in the COVID-19 Business Interruption Case

The United Kingdom’s Supreme Court finally concluded the long-awaited COVID-19 business interruption case brought by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Hiscox Action...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -