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

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 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

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 -