The pandemic has made masks a part of our daily attire. Initially wearing masks were seen as uncomfortable, but the concept of personal safety took precedence over comfort. The Delhi High Court reinforced the same idea in a case.
Facts of the Case
The petition was filed by lawyer Saurabh Sharma. He claimed that he was fined Rs 500 by the Delhi Police for not wearing a mask when driving in his private car alone. The said incident took place on September 9, 2020. Similar petitions have been filed before the Delhi High Court by Aditya Kaushik and Deepak Agarwal. The petitioner demanded a refund of the challan amount of Rs. 500 and Rs 10 lakh compensation for mental harassment. The fine, the petition stated was “ex-facie arbitrary and illegal.”
Arguments
The petitioner argued that the officials were unable to provide an executive order that deemed the imposition of fine when driving alone in a private car without a mask. He stated that he paid the fine as a mark of “protest.”
The Delhi Disaster Management Authority (DDMA) contended that order in April 2020 and a notification in June 2020 made wearing masks in public places compulsory. The Supreme Court had earlier ruled that a private car is a public place.
Advocate Farman Ali, who represented the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare stated that the health was a state subject and the power to make rules resided with the Delhi government while clearing that the Ministry has not issued any guidelines asking people to wear masks when alone in a car.
The advocate representing the petitioner Joby Varghese requested to file a rejoinder for the ministry’s affidavit while adding that the main counsel was unavailable. He also added that the Union Health Minister had conducted a press conference subsequent to DDMA’s order where it was informed those travelling alone in the car need not wear a mask.
Decision of Delhi High Court
The matter was heard by Justice Pratibha Singh who stated that “You cannot make it an ego issue…wearing a mask.” The Court observed that there was a chance of catching the infection when rolling down windows at traffic signals, thereby safety might get compromised. The Court also warned the petitioner of imposing a cost on him. The Court gave one week’s time to file rejoinder and scheduled the matter to be heard on February 15th.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgement from the court. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can also contribute blog, articles, story tip, judgment and many more and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.
