Denial By Delhi High Court of Plea Seeking COVID-19 Testing Labs to Be Set up in Courts for Advocates, Judicial Officers, Staff

Must Read

Plea Seeking Dream 11 to Be Declared as Betting Platform Dismissed by Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan HC dismissed a plea that alleged Dream 11 to be a betting platform, on the assertion that the...

Federal Court Denied Involvement of US Department of Justice in Trump’s Defamation Lawsuit

Background  The Plaintiff, E .Jean Carroll, published a book where she wrote that a businessman, Donald J Trump had raped...

SC Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and...

Lawsuit Filed Against Uber for Discriminatory “Star Rating System”

The lawsuit was bought in the District Court of North California against Uber. The plaintiff claims class-action status on...

Bombay High Court To Hear Plea Seeking Removal of Chairperson of National Commission for Women

A Writ Petition had been filed in the Bombay High Court challenging the conduct of the Chairperson of the...

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed...

Follow us

The Delhi High Court asked the Delhi Government to decide a representation seeking an arrangement of COVID-19 testing labs in Court premises for advocates, judicial officers, their staff and family members (Vishesh Verma vs Govt of NCT of Delhi).

Brief Facts of the Case

Advocate Vishesh Verma, an advocate and social activist, had filed a PIL in the High Court of Delhi on 8th June 2020. The petitioner sought relief for arranging facilities in Court
premises. This was for collection of COVID-19 samples and their testing for the legal fraternity. This included the advocates, judicial officers and the staff.

Arguments by the Parties

The petition stated that thousands of advocates and judicial officers were practicing/working in Delhi-NCR during the COVID-19 situation. But there were no facilities provided to the advocates to stop the spread of the virus. It said that in such a situation, the advocates, judicial officers and their staff were not safe because most of the advocates were dependent upon practice and leading the life on a daily basis through legal practice alone. The plea said that several advocates were receiving funds from Bar Council of Delhi. This was because of unemployment due to the lock down. And it also stated that these funds were not sufficient for their livelihood.

The petitioner asserted that after doctors, health professionals and police, advocates had most public dealing.

They were at the high risk of infection of the virus. The petitioner stated that there had been several instances of affecting of judicial officers and Court staff in the city with COVID-19. It also specified that the number of infected persons may go up to 5.5 lakh in some time. The petitioner, during the hearing, also stated that he had already made a representation in this regard to the Delhi government but the Government took no action. 

The counsel for the Delhi Government, Advocate Jawahar Raja stated that setting up a testing facility was not practicable given the aerosolization in the surrounding with the virus at the time of testing.

Court’s Observation

A division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Prateek Jalan looked into the matter. And the hearing was held via video conferencing. The Court questioned the petitioner, that if the advocates were getting affected more than people running the chemist and grocery shops, to which he replied yes. The Court remarked that the people of the legal fraternity were not the only ones who were getting affectedIt also asserted that the lawyers can use the labs and sample collection facilities already in existence.

The Court later noted that the representation of the Petitioner on the issue was still pending with the Delhi Government. It asked the Delhi Government to decide the pending representation in accordance with the law. They were to take the decision as expeditiously as possible and practicable.

Court’s Decision

The Court declined to entertain this PIL as it did not agree to the contentions of the petitioner.


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

Plea Seeking Dream 11 to Be Declared as Betting Platform Dismissed by Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan HC dismissed a plea that alleged Dream 11 to be a betting platform, on the assertion that the game depends on skill &...

Federal Court Denied Involvement of US Department of Justice in Trump’s Defamation Lawsuit

Background  The Plaintiff, E .Jean Carroll, published a book where she wrote that a businessman, Donald J Trump had raped her in a dressing room,...

SC Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. They heard...

Lawsuit Filed Against Uber for Discriminatory “Star Rating System”

The lawsuit was bought in the District Court of North California against Uber. The plaintiff claims class-action status on behalf of all the minority...

Bombay High Court To Hear Plea Seeking Removal of Chairperson of National Commission for Women

A Writ Petition had been filed in the Bombay High Court challenging the conduct of the Chairperson of the National Commission for Women. The...

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed an Order on 25th October...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that Germany had violated the...

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in case of lack of independent...

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -