Tripura High Court Directs State Government to Increase COVID Testing and Release Daily Details

Must Read

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract....

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish...

Follow us

In WP(C)(PIL) No.09/2020, a petition taken on its own motion by the Court to monitor the COVID care activities in the State. A division bench comprising of Hon’ble Justice Akil Kureshi and Hon’ble Justice S Talapatra dealt with the updates and progress details of pandemic related initiatives and programmes by the State government.

Brief Facts

The court on its own motion initiated a writ petition in the public interest to consider certain issues of health and hygiene amidst the pandemic based on newspaper reports that have pointed out to serious shortcomings in the public health care system. Court had ordered the Government to file an affidavit with explanations regarding the number of corona cases, hospital beds for treatment both govt and private, steps taken to update patients about health conditions, details of fund allocation to hospitals, availability of medical staff, treatment centres and medical equipment. Following which the govt filed an affidavit on 18th September with details citing three factors for rising deaths: not using mask properly, not maintaining social distance and late admission to hospitals. Court then directed the govt, to provide certain additional details regarding steps taken to ensure adherence to COVID norms and hygiene practices by the public.

Arguments Advanced

Counsel who is the learned Advocate General, assisting the court as Amicus Curiae submitted that the State Government conducted special drives for violation of directives for wearing masks in public. Further details regarding corona cases had been provided, Counsel explained the drop in the number of testing over the period due to Government’s decision to stop testing every person landing at the airport, railway station as well as in international borders which was previously done. Further, he also submitted that the government has taken measures to place a ceiling on treatment fee and that there were two internal reports regarding the quality of medical equipment.

Court’s Observation and Conclusion

Court ordered that the State Government must:

i) ensure that violations for not wearing masks in public are detected and penalty collected as per rules;

ii) publish the record of people being tested every 24 hrs along with the current publication of statistics with respect to corona positive cases and deaths;

iii) An action report of implementing the recommendations of the Central Expert Team needs to be filed;

iv) a team comprising of senior doctors and administrators must be formed to periodically visit COVID hospitals and make suggestions and recommendations to the government;

v) If any rates have been fixed for treatment, the same has to be stated in an affidavit;

vi) the details of the inquiry into the quality of medical equipment need to be disclosed. Further also observed that the spared resources due to reduced testing at certain points need to be used for testing more people staying in the State.


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

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

The Federal Appeals Court Holds Trump’s Diversion of Military Funds To Build the Wall To Be Unlawful

The Federal Appeals Court held that US President Donald Trump’s diversion of military funds to build the wall is unlawful. A grey area in the...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed Challenging the Judgment of Madras High Court in Ganesan v. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police

An appeal was filed before the Supreme court, challenging the judgment & order of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the HC judgment...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -